Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Victims of Crime

Selaine Saxby: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

James Sunderland: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

Suzanne Webb: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

Dominic Raab: We are increasing victim support funding to £185 million by 2024—almost double the amount in the 2020-21 core budgets, and more than quadruple the victims funding in the last year of the last Labour Government.

Selaine Saxby: Will my right hon. Friend expand on the specifics for victims of an alleged crime who are under 16 and who attend the same school as the accused? Are there opportunities to expedite such cases, which typically take years to progress?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the particular vulnerability of children in such cases. The courts already have the power to prioritise cases, for example those with a particular risk of the victim or a witness being intimidated. The Department for Education’s statutory guidance for schools and others makes it clear that they can take appropriate measures to safeguard children, which can include transfers to and from schools where necessary.

James Sunderland: The Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, provides excellent support to victims of crime through his office’s Victims First support service. One challenge that he faces is that the Ministry of Justice does not allow victims funding to be used to support victims of antisocial behaviour. That is a real concern for my constituents in Bracknell. Might the Secretary of State be willing to review the policy?

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute to the work of Commissioner Matthew Barber. In 2022-23, we are providing PCCs with £69 million of core funding to commission victim  support services. How they allocate the funding is at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need, but it can include services to support victims of ASB that reaches the threshold of a criminal offence. As my hon. Friend will know, we are consulting on new powers for courts to consider community impact assessments in trials so that the blight and oppression that antisocial behaviour causes in whole communities can be properly factored in.

Suzanne Webb: Ryan Passey was tragically killed in 2017, at the mercy of a perpetrator with a knife. The case went to court and the perpetrator was acquitted, which was considered a bizarre verdict. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that I and the Passey family have secured a review of the police investigation. That review is ongoing, but the family feel let down by the lack of support after the trial, at the time when they most needed it. They have lost their only son, but had no support despite the verdict. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and the family to understand how improvements can be made in the provision of support for victims’ families, not just during an investigation but after the verdict, particularly when a bizarre verdict is given?

Dominic Raab: My deepest sympathies go to the family and friends of Ryan Passey. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an independent review; I will be happy to make sure that she can see an appropriate Minister.
We have made £130 million available this year to tackle serious violence. As my hon. Friend will know, the latest data shows a 4% decrease in recorded cases of knife crime. On post-trial support, we are providing £4.6 million a year in funding for the national homicide service, which provides a range of services, including counselling and emotional support, that can continue as long as is needed for a bereaved family, including after trial.

Sarah Champion: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have worked across Government for many years to secure support for victims of crime, particularly victims and survivors of child abuse and sexual assault. I welcome the introduction of the victims Bill, the enshrining in law of the victims code and the Secretary of State’s commitment to funding, but we need more sexual assault referral centres, more independent sexual violence advisers and more special measures in courts; indeed, we need more courts and prosecutors. Has the Secretary of State done the analysis to show that the money he is bringing forward will cover all that?

Dominic Raab: I am pleased to see, in the context of the latest data, that rape convictions are up 67% on the previous year. We will be bringing forward our response to the consultation on the victims Bill and the associated package very shortly. There will be a step change—a quantum leap—in the number of ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers as a result of the settlement that I have secured with the Treasury. I am happy to give the hon. Lady specific details.

Ronnie Cowan: Over the years, many people have been coerced, often through violence, into being filmed in pornography that has been put  online for people to see for years to come. Will the Government consider making provision in the Online Safety Bill for people to withdraw their consent and have that content removed from the internet?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which I will certainly convey to the Home Office in the context of the online harms Bill.

Stephanie Peacock: Four years ago, Jackie Wileman was tragically killed on her daily walk by four men joyriding a stolen HGV around Barnsley. The men responsible had 100 convictions between them. I pay tribute to Jackie’s brother, Johnny Wood, for his campaign to increase sentences for causing death by dangerous driving, and I welcome the change in the law, but Johnny has now been informed that one of the offenders may shortly be released from prison on temporary licence without the proper process being followed. Will the Secretary of State meet Johnny and me to discuss what more can be done to support victims?

Dominic Raab: I am not aware of the specifics of that case, but I take this issue very seriously. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will ensure that we can not only address the specifics very carefully, but arrange for her to meet a relevant Minister.

Offenders: Giving Back to Communities

Jerome Mayhew: What plans he has to help ensure that offenders give back to their communities.

Alun Cairns: What plans he has to help ensure that offenders give back to their communities.

Kit Malthouse: When people have broken the law, and when it is safe and proportionate for them to do so, they should serve their sentences in the community. It is important for them to be seen to be paying back to the communities to whom they have caused harm. We are investing £93 million in community payback staff over the next three years so that we can increase the number of hours worked to a record-breaking 8 million a year.

Jerome Mayhew: Justice needs to be seen to be done, not just for victims but for the wider community, so that they can be confident that offenders are not getting away with it. Community payback projects allow for offenders to make reparations to the communities whom they have harmed. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will be working to expand such projects across the country?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is right: people do want to see justice being done, in a visible way, in their communities. I hope that he saw some of the 300-odd gangs of offenders who delivered about 10,000 hours of community work across the country, particularly on environmental schemes, during the recent Keep Britain Tidy spring clean-up week. However, Members of Parliament can also play a part in this project. We do need to increase those hours to 8 million a year, and we need Members’ help in nominating schemes on which we can put offenders to work, so if Members feel like it,   I ask them please to go online and look at the Ministry of Justice website. They can nominate a scheme, and we will send some people to do some cleaning up.

Alun Cairns: Fonmon castle park and gardens, in my constituency, provides a first-class day out for visitors, but will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating those who run it on the partnership that they have established with HM Prison Parc? This offers new opportunities for offenders, while also resolving some of the labour shortages in the area.

Kit Malthouse: I am, of course, happy to celebrate the success of Fonmon castle and its partnership with Parc prison. As my right hon. Friend knows, we believe that employment for offenders is critical to moving them into a better life. Building partnerships of that kind between businesses and prisons is key for the future, and I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that Parc prison is in line, in the next year, to have one of our new employment advisory boards, which will bring such partnerships to life across all the UK’s geographies.

Tim Farron: Offenders are unlikely to be able to give back to their communities if they find themselves homeless on their release from prison, as I have discovered when supporting people in that situation in my own community. Will the Minister undertake to bring to the House a report indicating the extent to which homelessness among ex-offenders is a fact—which it clearly is—along with an action plan to help constituency Members in all parts of the House to support people when they leave prison so that they can lead a stable existence in their communities and therefore give back?

Kit Malthouse: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the provision of a home—of accommodation—for those leaving the secure estate is critical. We believe that there are three pillars to success: a job, a house and a friend to put people on to the straight and narrow. I do not have to publish a report to underline that, because there has been plenty of research to prove that it is the case. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we do have an action plan, with some challenging targets, to ensure that all those leaving the secure estate can access the accommodation they need to get them back on to the straight and narrow.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Ellie Reeves.

Ellie Reeves: Unpaid work gives offenders a chance to give back to their communities, but huge workloads and staff shortages in the probation service mean that in some areas there is a backlog of up to 100,000 hours owed by offenders, and some have even had their hours wiped because they have not been completed in time. Is this not just another example of our broken justice system—a system that lets offenders off while victims pay the price? When will the Government get serious and fix this?

Kit Malthouse: It is very sad that the hon. Lady is not celebrating the achievements of the probation service, which is expanding. We are recruiting 500 new community supervisors so that we can get on top of some of the covid-related backlog in unpaid work. We have to hit 8 million hours and we have thousands of offenders out there in high-vis jackets doing the work, particularly  environmental work with organisations such as the Canal & River Trust. When the Prime Minister promoted that scheme, the Opposition condemned it, saying that it was somehow inhuman. Actually, all our communities across the United Kingdom, day in day out, are seeing justice being done by these offenders, and that is set to grow.

Court Delays: Attrition

Alex Norris: What assessment he has made of the impact of court delays on victim attrition rates.

James Cartlidge: I am pleased to report that we are making progress on court delays in the Crown court. As of the end of March 2022, the outstanding backlog was 57,800, which is 5% lower than the peak of 60,700 cases in June 2021. Prior to the pandemic, the outstanding caseload had reduced significantly from 46,100 in 2010 to around 33,000 in late 2018. That underlines just how significant the impact of covid was. On attrition, we recognise the importance of addressing these issues, and that is why we are increasing victim support funding to £185 million by 2024-25. That will fund more than 1,000 independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers to help victims through the process.

Alex Norris: Last year, a staggering 1.3 million cases were dropped because the victim could not carry on any longer. That is on top of extraordinarily low charge rates—7% for robbery and 3% for theft. For my community, that means that cases are delayed, crime is up and charges are down. The Minister talked about progress, but it is not quick enough, is it?

James Cartlidge: These are important points. Attrition is most important with regard to rape. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the total number of rape convictions was up 67% last year, and I can confirm that in the last quarter of last year they were up 15%, so we are making progress but we want to go further. That is why it is so important that we have put in place all the measures to increase capacity in our courts and it is why the backlog is now falling.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Bob Neill.

Bob Neill: The Minister is right to highlight the work that is being done to increase support for victims, but he will be aware that the Justice Committee published a report on court capacity on 27 April. I look forward to hearing his response to it. In the summary, we highlight that despite efforts from the Government to go in the right direction:
“Delays in the Crown Court have reached a point where they are causing significant injustice.”
Is it not the reality that solving this will require not just victim measures but, more significantly, a root-and-branch attempt to tackle all the elements of delay, which relate to judicial capacity, physical capacity and maintenance of the estate, improved data and technology and improved processes in the Crown court? All those must come together, and that requires sustained investment. Will the Minister respond in detail to the report in due course?

James Cartlidge: I look forward to responding to it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about resources, and that is why we had almost £0.5 billion of funding in the spending review settlement, particularly to tackle Crown court backlogs. He is also right to talk about judicial capacity. As we came out of the pandemic, having resisted the temptation to lock down again at Christmas, we reopened 60 courtrooms that had been closed, so we have the rooms, more or less—with some local variance—but he is right to say that we need judicial capacity. One key issue in the recruitment of judges was the pension scheme, but we have just had Royal Assent for a new scheme, which should address that important aspect of capacity in our courts.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Alex Cunningham.

Alex Cunningham: Let me remind the Minister that 67% of a small number is still a small number. The recent criminal justice joint inspection report into pandemic recovery noted:
“The prospect of waiting years for justice is likely to be traumatising for victims and their families and has a damaging impact on justice itself, making it more likely that victims will drop out of cases”.
We know that the Ministry has secured funding to reduce the backlog to 53,000 cases by 2025, but that number still dwarfs pre-pandemic figures. We all want timely justice for defendants and victims, so can the Minister confirm how long on average people are waiting for their cases to come to court, and what impact the additional funding will have on cutting those waiting times?

James Cartlidge: These are, as I said, important points. I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have committed the funding. Where is it going? For the second year on the trot, we have removed the cap on sitting days in the Crown court, which is probably the single most important aspect of delivering capacity. We are also doing it through legislation.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we recently had Royal Assent for the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which is a key measure in helping us to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, releasing up to 1,700 days in the Crown court. That is 1,700 days when we can hear serious cases—rapes, murders and all the rest—to get through the backlog, because capacity is key. I have always said that it is about taking a joined-up approach. We have the funding in place and we have the legislation. It is such a shame that the Opposition could not support us.

Access to Legal Aid

Andrew Lewer: What progress his Department has made on improving access to legal aid.

James Cartlidge: Last year, to ensure accessibility to vital support, we spent £1.7 billion on legal aid. We are consulting on changes that will result in an additional 2 million people in England and Wales having access to civil legal aid, with 3.5 million more people having access to legal aid at the magistrates court. By any measure, that is a very significant expansion of access. Alongside that, we propose to invest up to £135 million  a year in criminal legal aid, more than £7 million in improving access to housing legal aid, and £8 million in expanding access to immigration legal aid.

Andrew Lewer: Next month I will be visiting Northampton Community Law Service, which has proved indispensable to many of my constituents. What steps are being taken to ensure sufficient funding streams for areas of specialist legal advice and support that are proving to be the most in demand amid the cost of living crisis, particularly debt and employment law?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend, who is a champion for his constituents, makes the important point that these are increasingly important matters in the current economic context. That is why we have committed to ensuring that specialist legal advice services continue to provide support for those who need it most, and it is why, in particular, we will be spending £5 million to pilot early legal advice on social welfare matters, including debt, this summer. Throughout 2020 we provided £5.4 million of grant funding to not-for-profit providers of legal advice, supporting more than 70 organisations to help vulnerable people resolve their legal problems. I am pleased to confirm that those rounds of funding provided more than £130,000 to Northampton Community Law Service.

Andrew Gwynne: From the Minister’s answers, we might think everything is rosy in the world of legal aid, but the reality is that there are legal aid deserts in many parts of the country where practitioners have packed up and stopped providing vital access to the justice system. What is the Minister doing to ensure that, in every part of England, there is fair access to legal aid?

James Cartlidge: That is a fair question, but I do not accept that there are areas of the country where people are denied access to justice because there are no legal aid providers. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under constant review and takes immediate action where gaps appear by tendering for new providers and amending contractual requirements to encourage new providers into the market. In England and Wales, legal advice on housing matters is available, wherever people are, through the Civil Legal Advice telephone service.
On access to legal aid, as I said, we are consulting on proposals that will increase the number of people who can access civil legal aid by 2 million, which is a significant measure.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Afzal Khan.

Afzal Khan: I thank the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for raising the importance of access to legal aid. In fact, his region—the east midlands—has seen an above average fall in access to criminal and civil legal aid since 2013. Compared with England and Wales as a whole, the region also has a higher proportion of local authorities with no providers of legal aid on housing, immigration, family and community care law. These legal aid deserts are worst for family and community care law, with the cost of living crisis compounding that further. Victims are being let down at every stage.
Legal aid deserts are a direct result of chronic underfunding, and they deny justice to victims across the UK. The Government have failed to deliver even the bare minimum of what Sir Christopher Bellamy advised in his review. I understand that the Government are considering a civil sustainability review, so perhaps the Justice Secretary will provide further details. The Government like to pay lip service to levelling up the country, but when will the Lord Chancellor level up access to justice?

James Cartlidge: It would probably be more helpful if I referred to what the hon. Gentleman said on a previous occasion. On 15 March, in response to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement about criminal legal aid and the measures that we were taking, he said:
“Today’s announcement and response to the Bellamy review is welcome, particularly the Government’s commitment to increase legal aid rates by the 15% that Sir Christopher Bellamy recommended.” —[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 777.]
That is what we are doing. He recommended £135 million of additional funding for criminal legal aid. That is what we are proposing and what we are consulting on. So my job as I see it is very clear. It is to get on with ensuring that those criminal legal aid rates are increased as soon as is practicable, and we look forward to introducing a statutory instrument later this year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: I wonder if I might suggest that another review of partygate could help inform Government policy on legal aid and access to justice. I say that because of the widely perceived link between a person’s ability to pay for legal advice and the number of fixed penalty notices that that person might receive, compared to others attending the very same event. So during his consultation, will the Minister speak to junior Downing Street staff and civil servants about their views on the significance of access to and the affordability of criminal legal advice?

James Cartlidge: It’s a nice try, but our discussions in Downing Street are about the measures that we are bringing forward to tackle crime, not least the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which the Labour party voted against and Opposition Members spoke out against, and which will see violent and sexual offenders serving longer in prison. That is where our focus is and the focus of the British people is.

Human Rights Framework Reform

Patricia Gibson: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on proposed reforms to the UK’s human rights framework.

Dominic Raab: As announced in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, the Government will replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a Bill of Rights to be introduced in this parliamentary Session.

Patricia Gibson: Will the Secretary of State follow last year’s recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and ensure that there are no changes to the Human Rights Act—the provisions of which are embedded in the Scotland Act 1998—without the consent of the devolved Administrations? If that consent is withheld and his Government unpick the Act unilaterally on behalf of the four UK nations, what message does he think it will send to citizens across the devolved nations?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady. As she knows, we will assess the question of the applicability of the Sewel convention, quite rightly, when the full Bill of Rights text is provided. This reform will strengthen free speech, but curb the ability of, for example, criminals to take advantage of and abuse the system. I believe that that will be welcomed in all four nations.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform of our human rights framework will help to prevent foreign national offenders from avoiding deportation and help to restore some public confidence in our human rights legislation?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right. The still high volume—around 70%—of successful challenges, on human rights grounds, of deportation orders by foreign national offenders is on article 8 grounds. That is exactly the kind of thing that our reforms will address and the public across the UK will welcome.

Lindsay Hoyle: Stuart C. McDonald, the SNP spokesperson.

Stuart McDonald: Thank you again, Mr Speaker. The Human Rights Act 1998 has become a cornerstone of justice and democracy in the United Kingdom. It is pivotal legislation not to be tinkered with lightly. Given that cross-party MPs have today found that the now Justice Secretary presided over a
“disaster and a betrayal of our allies”
and
“a lack of seriousness, grip or leadership at a time of national emergency.”
in relation to Afghanistan, I have to ask in all seriousness why he should be allowed anywhere near such fundamental legislation and indeed why he is in ministerial office at all.

Dominic Raab: I am surprised that the SNP has nothing to say on the issues at hand in relation to criminal justice, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the UK.

Defendants on Remand: Sentencing Hearings

James Wild: What plans he has to give Crown Court judges the power to require defendants held on remand to attend sentencing hearings in person.

James Cartlidge: The current position is that the courts can require that a defendant held on remand attends their sentence hearing, but they cannot force them to do so. Where a defendant is likely to be disruptive in court  or where taking action to ensure that they attend would cause delays, it can be in the best interests of justice and victims to proceed in their absence. However, I fully appreciate that, in other circumstances, a defendant’s absence can cause anger and upset for victims and their families, and we are actively considering what can be done to address this.

James Wild: It is important for public confidence that justice is seen to be done. When defendants in murder, rape and other serious cases hide in their cells and fail to appear for sentencing, they are effectively abusing their victim and the victim’s family once again. So I welcome the work that my hon. Friend is doing on this issue. May I encourage him to look at giving judges the power to increase custodial sentences in such circumstances?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes a really important point: justice being seen to be done is a key principle of our case law system. I am sure we all agree that a defendant should be brought before the court to face the consequences of their crime. Of course, one case in particular comes to mind. Sabina Nessa’s family wanted Koci Selamaj to be present to hear their victim impact statement, so that they could convey the hurt that he caused. In that case, the sentencing judge referred to the defendant’s actions as “cowardly…refusals” to attend.
However, I have to stress that, although defendants can be punished for refusing a prison order to attend court, they cannot be forced to attend. As I say, it is important to recognise that, although the presence of the defendant may be a comfort to some victims, there will be circumstances in which a defendant’s behaviour is distressing to victims and their families. For that reason, we have to take a balanced approach but, as I say, we are looking at what can be done. One option could be to make it a statutory aggravating factor.

Ellie Reeves: When Sabina Nessa’s killer did not turn up to court to hear his sentence, his cowardice caused further unimaginable hurt to her family. Anisha Vidal-Garner was killed by a hit-and-run driver; when he stayed in his cell during sentencing, he avoided listening to the powerful victim impact statements from her family. This soft-on-crime, tough-on-victims Government have had 12 years to compel criminals to attend court to hear their sentences. Labour has been calling for it; where is the action? Why is it taking so long to get progress on this issue?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady knows that these are primarily matters of judicial responsibility. We have to ensure that whatever measures we take can work in practice in our courts, with the right balance being struck. She says we are soft on crime; I remind her that we recently received Royal Assent for an Act that will ensure that serious violent and sexual offenders will serve longer in prison so that we keep our streets safe. Labour voted against that. That tells us one simple message: when it comes to the big calls on law and order and keeping this country safe, the Labour party still cannot be trusted.

Reducing Reoffending

Matt Vickers: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Sara Britcliffe: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

James Davies: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Dominic Raab: The reoffending rate for prisoners who leave prison has fallen by nine percentage points—from 51% to 42%—since 2010. The rate of prison leavers who secure a job within six months has risen by almost two thirds in the past year alone.

Matt Vickers: Getting prison leavers into work is crucial to reduce reoffending, turn ex-offenders’ lives around, cut crime and protect the public. Employment advisory boards have an important role to play in building links between prisons and local businesses. Will my right hon. Friend update us on progress in this policy area?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely bang on. More than half of resettlement prisons now have a business leader who chairs their EAB. That puts us ahead of schedule for our national plan to deliver for every resettlement prison by April next year. To be clear on the results and outcomes we are looking for, let me give one example: at HMP Wandsworth, 39 prison leavers have been helped to find jobs and further training through their board and the prison’s employment team.

Sara Britcliffe: As recently as February in my Hyndburn constituency, Lancashire police had to issue dispersal orders in Accrington town centre because of antisocial behaviour. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how we can prevent young people in particular from reoffending or falling into bad habits, particularly when they have been through the youth justice system?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was up in Blackpool last week to announce a £300 million fund that local authorities can access to prevent youth offending. It is called the turnaround project and is targeted at around 20,000 children. The idea is to get them into sports, whether that is boxing or martial arts, or indeed into drama or other positive outlets. By doing that, we can then wraparound the pastoral care and work with the law enforcement agencies. That will not just give those children the opportunity to take a springboard into school, training and, ultimately, work, but keep our streets safer for communities.

James Davies: My right hon. Friend is right to focus on helping offenders to find work post release, which is crucial to reduce reoffending. Will he update the House on progress made in that respect?

Dominic Raab: In the last year alone, we have seen a step change in respect of offenders being in work within six months of release from prison; the number has increased by two thirds. The prisons White Paper sets out the strategy. We are rolling out the chairs of employment advisory boards and now have chairs for 48 out of 91 prisons. We have also stood up 29 of the employment hubs in our prisons. Those are the links between prison governors and local businesses that will get offenders into work and to stay on the straight and narrow.

Kerry McCarthy: A recent report showed that thousands of severely mentally ill prisoners who had been assessed as requiring hospitalisation were not being transferred because of the shortage of NHS beds, or they were facing long delays. Does the Secretary of State agree with the director of the Prison Reform Trust who said that this guarantees that
“people will leave prison in a worst state than when they came in, with every likelihood that the behaviour that originally led to their arrest and conviction will continue”?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady. I think that there will cross-party support for the work that we are doing with the mental health Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech, absolutely ending prison as a place of safety, if you like, for those with mental health issues and making sure that those who are seriously mentally unwell can be transferred into secure hospitals. I recently met the Health and Social Care Secretary to expedite those arrangements.

Andrew Slaughter: Approved premises house the highest risk offenders—terrorists and serious sex offenders—on release from custody. Their location is sensitive both for rehabilitation and protection of the public. Why on earth, therefore, is the Ministry of Justice building approved premises next to the main entrance of Wormwood Scrubs Prison, when the counter-terrorism security assessment lists 18 vulnerabilities, including potential assaults on staff, observation over the prison wall, use of a launch site for drones and undermining rehabilitation? Will the Secretary of State abandon this dangerous and counterproductive scheme?

Dominic Raab: Approved premises are vital. Of course we take all the requisite security advice on the matter and I am very happy to write to the hon. Member about any of the details. However, may I suggest that he write to me to set out the facts that he asserted, so I can test them very carefully and rebut them very clearly?

Gregory Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that more needs to be done to promote programmes that lead to reductions in reoffending rates, particularly in prisons such as Magilligan prison in my constituency, so that the wider community can feel safer as a result of successful programmes?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Member is right. The prisons White Paper sets out an overhaul of the regime. We want to assess offenders in week one, whether it is for their addiction, mental health or state of mind, or for things such as numeracy, literacy and their educational qualifications. We then want a pathway right the way through that gets them sustainably off drugs, not just abandoned on methadone. We want to give them the skills and education that they need and, fundamentally and critically, a step change in the approach to getting offenders on licence into work. Those are the keys to driving down reoffending beyond the 9 percentage point reduction in reoffending that we have seen from offenders leaving prison compared with the last year of the last Labour Government.

Prisoner Literacy

Matthew Hancock: What steps his Department is taking to improve literacy among prisoners.

Victoria Atkins: If we can improve prisoners’ literacy and numeracy skills, we will increase their ability to get jobs when they are released, which, in turn, will cut crime and make our streets safer. That is why we have set our plans to achieve exactly that in the prisons strategy White Paper. We have already introduced measures of progress in English and maths to hold governors to account, and we will be establishing an innovation scheme to deliver new initiatives to improve the reading and writing of prisoners.

Matthew Hancock: I welcome what the Minister has said on improving literacy among prisoners and what the Secretary of State said in answer to the previous question. May I just strengthen the point about governor accountability? Training in prisons is currently accountable through Ofsted and the training provider is held accountable. Until governors themselves are fully accountable for the literacy of prisoners as they leave, tied of course with the need to get prisoners into work, on which there has been excellent progress, it will always be harder than it should be to get the reading training needed, especially for those who are dyslexic.

Victoria Atkins: My right hon. Friend is completely right. We are putting in place a new deal for governors based on clear expectations and accountability, giving them greater autonomy over education provision in their establishments, which includes transparent key performance indicators, outcome measures and targets, including on prisoner literacy. Indeed, in Highpoint Prison in his constituency, there is a prisoner who was completely illiterate on entering prison. He had the ambition to read to his young child and is now three chapters into a book. With that sort of personal determination and encouragement from the Prison Service, we have high hopes for the chances of prisoners when they leave prison and keeping our communities safer.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. Education and literacy highlight the inconsistency between what is devolved and what is reserved in relation to justice in Wales. Does the Minister therefore welcome Welsh Government’s proposals, published today, to further the devolution of justice in Wales, and will she commit to work with Welsh Government to further those proposals?

Victoria Atkins: I like working with the Welsh Government; that may come as a surprise to some, but I have found them incredibly helpful on plans such as the residential women’s centre, which I launched the plans for only last week. We will see a residential women’s centre set up in Swansea to help vulnerable women who are on the cusp of custody, giving them 12 weeks’ residential accommodation and courses to try to steer them away from offending. I believe that, by working together we can come up with some really interesting and innovative ideas to help not just the good people of Wales, but the entire United Kingdom.

Child Cruelty Register

Nicholas Fletcher: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the introduction of a child cruelty register following the enactment of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

Tom Pursglove: The entire House and the whole country speak with one voice in saying that child cruelty is abhorrent. The Government are determined to ensure that the law offers the fullest protection to children; that is why we brought forward the sentencing measures through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has asked the Department for Education and the Home Office to consider issues around the management of child cruelty offenders, including the introduction of a register.

Nicholas Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that the creation of a child cruelty register would be enormously helpful to those already involved in child welfare issues, such as social workers and police? Does he also agree that it would ensure that no looked-after child would be placed with any person who is on such a register, and that that would not only save lives, but prevent injury, both physical and psychological?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter, not least given the hugely troubling and distressing cases that we have seen reported in the media of late. One thing we know, which was borne out in the care review published yesterday, is that there is a challenge with data and information sharing between agencies. I am sure that my counterparts in both the Department for Education and the Home Office will consider whether a register of child cruelty offenders would improve child safeguarding processes, alongside wider learning from the findings of forthcoming reviews, such as that into the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson.

Non-custodial Sentences: Enforcement

Desmond Swayne: What steps he is taking to assure the public that non-custodial sentences are being enforced.

Kit Malthouse: Community sentences are robust and increasingly command the public’s confidence, not least as they can see more and more offenders in high-vis, brush and shovel in hand, in their streets.

Desmond Swayne: It is reported that the penalties can be discharged by working from home. Please tell me that is not true.

Lindsay Hoyle: A yes or a no will do.

Kit Malthouse: My county colleague can always be relied on to emerge from the forest and ask the most challenging questions. He is correct that independent working projects, while not ideal, were introduced during the pandemic to allow offenders to discharge their sentence with robust and rigorous projects done at home, such as manufacturing personal protective equipment or, more recently, clothing items for Ukrainian refugees. It is our intention to reduce the proportion of sentences  that can be done under home working, although for those who cannot handle a brush and a shovel there may well still be a place for it in the future—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call the shadow Secretary of State. That is too long an answer.

Steve Reed: We have heard a lot of complacency from the Government Benches on this issue. According to the Minister’s own Department, community payback offenders now carry out 75% fewer hours of unpaid work compared with five years ago. On average, 30,000 offenders get away without completing their community sentences every year, and now we hear the Government are letting criminals finish their unpaid work sentences at home. Why have they gone so soft on crime that they are letting those criminals get away with it?

Kit Malthouse: It is not the case that community sentences can be completed using those hours, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that, during the pandemic, with the restrictions placed upon us, we had to find a way to allow offenders to complete their sentence in a satisfactory way. We have systems in place to make sure the jobs are done rigorously to time and, as I have said, we will be winding down that project.

Family Justice System Reform

Edward Timpson: What steps his Department is taking to reform the family justice system.

Tom Pursglove: We are committed to reforming family law to reduce conflict and protect children and victims of domestic abuse. We are reducing demand in the private family courts. In 2021, we invested £3.3 million in the mediation voucher scheme, and over 8,000 vouchers have been issued to separating couples. In February, we launched pilots to test the less adversarial way of hearing private family law cases, and we aim to reduce the retraumatisation of domestic abuse survivors.

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Our family courts, of course, remain under significant pressure. It is welcome that there is additional funding for the likes of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and that the prioritisation protocols are being used for the time being. During my time as chair of CAFCASS, we established that about one in four cases going into private law children’s courts could have been avoided had pre-proceedings work been done. Is the Department also looking at that?

Tom Pursglove: There are domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns in half of private family cases; those cases, of course, need to be heard in court. But when it comes to cases that do not involve those concerns, the Government will support parents to resolve their issues earlier and outside court. We are considering making mediation compulsory for those cases.
As a former distinguished Children’s Minister, and given his former role at CAFCASS and his professional experience, my hon. Friend brings an awful lot of experience to these matters. Let us have a meeting to discuss his ideas in more detail.

Court Backlog: Sexual and Violent Crime Victims

Chi Onwurah: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the court backlog on the wellbeing of victims of (a) sexual and (b) violent offences.

James Cartlidge: We are taking action across all jurisdictions to bring backlogs down and improve waiting times for those who use our courts. I can confirm that the number of days taken for an adult rape case to progress from Crown Prosecution Service charge to completion has fallen by 38 days since the peak in June 2021. That is encouraging.

Chi Onwurah: Under the leadership of Kim McGuinness, our police and crime commissioner, Northumbria police have invested heavily in victim support. But they cannot make up for the wholesale failure of the justice system, with victims telling us that they feel revictimised by the length of delays and the complexity of the process. Does the Minister acknowledge that his plan to get the backlog down to 53,000—still a huge number—will not significantly address the delays? What additional support is he putting in place for the mental health of victims during these long, long delays?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady asks about what supports are in place; I am grateful to hear from her police and crime commissioner about the role that independent sexual violence advisers are playing. I confirm that we are investing further in victim support services by increasing funding to £185 million by 2024-25.

Chi Onwurah: And the delays in the courts?

James Cartlidge: I am coming to those. Of course we want to reduce delays as far as possible, but, to give a sense of the progress that we are making, I should say that in March there were 124,000 disposals in the magistrates courts and 9,280 in the Crown courts. Those are the highest figures for both since the pandemic. They show that output is increasing. That is why the backlog is now falling; we expect it to continue falling further.

Lindsay Hoyle: It will help even more when you open the Chorley court again.

Peter Bone: The victims of modern-day slavery experience the worst of violence and sexual assault. One of the ways in which we can keep them engaged with the justice system is for there to be victim navigators, which the Government are piloting. If that approach could be spread further, more people would be kept in the court system and more of these evil gangs would be taken off our streets.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As he will know, this is primarily a matter for the Home Office, but the roll-out of section 28 will support those cases. As we have mentioned several times today, there is a significant increase in funding for ISVAs, who provide significant support for dealing with precisely such issues as attrition and for ensuring that victims are supported throughout the process.

Topical Questions

Esther McVey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Since the last Justice questions, I have published the Government’s response to Jonathan Hall’s independent review of terrorism in prisons and the Government’s root-and-branch review of the parole system in England and Wales. I have also discussed action to hold to account the perpetrators of war crimes in Ukraine with International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan and United States war crimes ambassador Beth Van Schaack.

Esther McVey: Delays in family courts were already far too long before covid, and the problem has only got worse since then. It often means that a parent is not able to see their child in the meantime—a point raised by many parents in my constituency of Tatton. Will the Minister make the reduction of those delays in the family courts a priority?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As was mentioned earlier, something like 50% to 55% of cases that go to the family court are safeguarding or domestic abuse cases. I do think those need the authority of a judge, but the rest, frankly, should by and large be dispensed with before court through an alternative dispute resolution of one sort or another. We talked about considering making mediation compulsory, but crucially, we need the incentives and disincentives for early resolution to be unequivocal.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Steve Reed: Voters in Wakefield are furious that the Conservative party ignored a victim of child sexual abuse and allowed his paedophile abuser to become their MP. Will the Justice Secretary back an independent investigation into why his party failed to act on what this courageous victim told them?

Dominic Raab: Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman first of all that to politicise a case that has been subject and potentially remains subject to judicial proceedings is quite wrong? If he wants to talk to the voters of Wakefield about the choice at the upcoming by-election, it is a choice between Labour, which is weak on crime, and us. Violent crime has fallen by more than half since Labour was in office. We can talk about tougher sentences for dangerous sexual and violent offenders, which he voted against. We can talk about reoffending, which is lower than it was under Labour, or we can talk about funding for victims, which we have quadrupled since the last Labour Government.

Rob Butler: The Justice Committee recently visited HMP High Down and HMP Downview, where we saw excellent examples of businesses working with offenders to provide training and experience that will help them get a job when they are released, but there is a problem for prisoners trying to find out about job vacancies when they are still inside, because for very obvious reasons they cannot have access to the internet. Will my right hon. Friend  look into ways of overcoming that obstacle so that offenders have the best opportunity to apply for jobs before they are released?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me just talk him through what we are doing. The in-cell technology in the new prisons will give them much greater access for the purposes he described. We are also delivering digital upgrades to a further 11 prisons. The prison employment advisory boards will be crucial in linking local businesses with prisons. Critically, not only have we got key performance indicators, but I have increased the weighting for employment and skills from below 1% to 20%, so that governors focus on it. That will drive a step change in getting offenders into work.

Andy McDonald: The much-heralded diamorphine assisted treatment programme in my constituency has been running for two and a half years and produced some remarkable results, including a massive reduction in crime and the call on other health services. Sadly, the funding has now been withdrawn. If this programme unravels, all that work will be undone, so will a Minister meet me at the facility to discuss how we might secure its future?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting good examples of best practice, particularly in getting offenders off drugs. We know that that is the key, along with skills and getting them into work. If he writes to me on the facts of the case, I will certainly make sure that we look at it very carefully.

Lee Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these eco-hooligans who are causing untold damage up and down the country should be made to pay every single penny it costs for the repairs and made to arrange the work, as well as doing their community payback?

Dominic Raab: A man after my own heart. My hon. Friend is right that it is a total abuse, which the Opposition seem to want to give succour to, to allow the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest to become a right to sabotage. It will be very interesting to see in the weeks ahead whether they stand on the side of the public or on the side of those saboteurs. The Public Order Bill will help us to address this issue, and I can also assure my hon. Friend that courts already have the power to impose compensation.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know that we may have some by-elections coming, but the fact is that we are on topicals, and they are meant to be short and sweet. Lots of Members want to get in, and you are stopping Members from getting in. It is not fair.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My brave constituent Claire Ball used all her strength and courage to report that she was sexually abused as a child. She endured a painful court process, where her good character was continually called into question. While her abuser was allowed multiple character witnesses to state that he was a good person, Claire was not. What is the Secretary of State going to do to make sure that victims are afforded the same rights as perpetrators?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I mentioned earlier the increase in rape convictions that will be promoted by the use of section 28 to allow pre-recorded video evidence for the victims of rape and other serious sexual violence. She should also know that, working closely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, we are making great progress on Operation Soteria to make sure that the focus is on the accused rather than overwhelmingly on the victim who comes forward with the courage that that takes.

John Lamont: The Government should be proud of their pioneering efforts to protect victims, and I very much look forward to seeing the draft victims Bill. Have they considered how their actions contrast with those taken by the SNP Government in Edinburgh? Victim Support Scotland says that Scotland lags behind the rest of the UK on victims’ rights.

Dominic Raab: It is very telling that the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), did not want to talk about those issues or Scotland’s record and asked us something totally outside the realm of Justice questions. My hon. Friend makes a compelling point, but we will not rest on our laurels south of the border. We will introduce a victims Bill that will place the victims code into law and send the clearest possible signal that the justice system must deliver for victims as a matter of moral correctness and to ensure the efficacy of the system.

Wendy Chamberlain: In all nations of the UK, rape victims are being let down by criminal justice systems that make prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult. At present, charge rates for rape vary widely from 1.3% in Surrey, home to the Secretary of State’s constituency, to 8.2% in Durham. Some 63% of cases are closed because the victim gives up on the process and withdraws from it. Despite progress on disposals, what additional steps is he taking to address that horrific reality?

Dominic Raab: First, we have seen a step change increase in convictions by 67%—two thirds—over the last year. I think the hon. Lady is wrong, if I may say so, to use the statistic that she used. In fact, the conviction rate has increased from 68% in July to September 2021 to around 71% in the last quarter. Through Operation Soteria, section 28 and changes that are being made to disclosure, we will drive a step change in support for victims with the quadrupling of victims funding, which will help to support victims through the process and secure more convictions.

Elliot Colburn: Carshalton and Wallington residents are rightly proud of Ray and Vi Donovan for their work to promote the rights of victims to go through restorative justice, which they went through after the murder of their son Chris. Can my right hon. Friend assure me, in my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on restorative justice, that access to restorative justice practices and services will be enshrined in the victims Bill and that funding will be outlined to go along  with that?

Tom Pursglove: I am proud that we are quadrupling victims funding to £185 million by 2024-25, which is up from £41 million in 2009-10. The fact is that the longer-term multi-year funding settlement that we are introducing should help to give certainty to restorative justice programmes. Raising awareness of restorative justice is also key, as my hon. Friend and I recently discussed, and I am giving that close attention.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern on both sides of the House about people in prison who have been charged with joint enterprise, and the fact that there is now a campaign to look at those cases and the kind of convictions that are taking place? Many people who are charged and imprisoned are later found to be on the autism spectrum. That is a real concern, so will he meet me and JENGbA—Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association—to talk about it?

Dominic Raab: I am very concerned about the endemic levels of mental health challenges and illness in prison. Interestingly enough, I have talked particularly to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation about the link between autism and at-risk offenders. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the findings and learning that he has had, I will be happy to look at them carefully with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Derek Thomas: I had the great privilege of meeting A Band of Brothers, which is a voluntary organisation based around the UK, including in Cornwall. It works with and alongside men in the community who are in trouble with the law or at risk of getting in trouble with the law. Over 12 weeks, it helps those young men to get their lives back in order. The problem is that it works completely voluntarily. It has done great work to support the criminal justice system and safety in our communities. What more can be done to help it to grow and flourish and to upskill the great work it does?

Victoria Atkins: Is that not a sign of a community as a whole taking action, not just to reduce crime but to try to ensure that the young men my hon. Friend describes get on the straight and narrow and start to build healthy and happy lives for themselves? I would be delighted to discuss that further with him. I know for a fact that he has a superb police and crime commissioner, who I am sure will be supporting A Band of Brothers helpfully and meaningfully.

Dave Doogan: The Secretary of State will be aware that police officer numbers play a key role in reducing crime and reoffending, so what plans does he have to increase England’s officer level of 23 officers per 10,000 people to bring it closer to Scotland’s of 32 per 10,000 people?

Kit Malthouse: Mr Speaker, as you know, the Government are in the middle of a huge recruitment drive of police officers. We have, happily, increased the number by 13,500, and I am confident that by the end of the financial year we will have hit our 20,000 target.

Andy Carter: Families living near HMP Thorn Cross in my constituency have again raised with me concerns about absconds from this open prison. I am very grateful that the Minister took the time to visit the prison recently. Could she give us an update on what steps the Government are taking to reduce absconds from open prisons?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, and I know the concerns his community have. As he rightly says, I visited Thorn Cross to see for myself and to ask the governor what can be done to improve the abscond rate. This is an open prison, so it is right that the assessments of risk for each prisoner entering Thorn Cross must be as full as possible to understand whether they have ties that may cause them to abscond  from an open prison. What I have done is commission a further look into the assessments that are conducted nationally to ensure that the team at Thorn Cross are able to manage the people who are staying there as well as possible for the local community.

Andrew Slaughter: Given the constitutional importance of his role, is the Lord Chancellor considering his position in the Cabinet in the light of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Dominic Raab: No.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is a quick answer—the best we have had to today—and we can learn from that.

Xinjiang Internment Camps:  Shoot-to-Kill Policy

Nusrat Ghani: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the shocking revelations on the BBC by Professor Adrian Zenz that the internment camps in Xinjiang do exist and operate a shoot-to-kill Uyghur policy in contravention of the previous statement by the Government of the People’s Republic of China.

Amanda Milling: Today’s reports provide further shocking details of China’s gross human rights violations in Xinjiang. They add to an already extensive body of evidence from Chinese Government documents, first-hand testimony, satellite imagery and visits by our own diplomats to the region. The reports suggest a shoot-to-kill policy was in place at re-education camps for detainees seeking to escape. This is just one of many details that fatally undermine China’s repeated assertions that these brutal places of detention were in fact vocational training centres, or a legitimate response to concerns about extremism. On the contrary, the compelling evidence we see before us reveals the extraordinary scale of China’s targeting of Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities, including forced labour, severe restrictions on freedom of religion, the separation of parents from their children, forced birth control and mass incarceration.
We have already taken robust action in response. We have imposed sanctions, led joint statements at the UN, taken measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains, funded research to expose China’s actions and consistently raised our concerns with Beijing at the highest levels. The Prime Minister did so most recently in a phone call with President Xi on 25 March. In 2019, we were the first country to lead a joint statement on China’s human rights record in Xinjiang at the UN. Our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour. We work tirelessly to increase the number of countries speaking out. By October 2021, our efforts had helped to secure the support of 43 countries for a joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN Third Committee, including Muslim-majority Turkey and Albania. In response to today’s revelations, we will continue to work with our partners to raise the cost to China of its actions. We will continue to develop our domestic policy response, including introducing further measures to tackle forced labour in UK supply chains.
The UK stands with our international partners in calling out China’s appalling persecution of Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. We remain committed to holding China to account.

Nusrat Ghani: I welcome the Minister’s statement. She said so many things that will be so close to the evidence that was submitted to the independent inquiry that took place under Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. The inquiry determined that genocide against the Uyghurs is taking place. What more evidence do the Minister and the Department need to enable them to put in place their obligations under the genocide convention?
Today’s leak of the Xinjiang police files contains more than 2,000 photographs of individuals aged from 15 to 73, who have been incarcerated just for being born Uyghur or Muslim. If someone does not drink alcohol or smoke, or has a beard, he is incarcerated.
One of the markers of genocide is breaking the link between parent and child: there are children in the re-education centres. Let us not forget the Chinese Communist Party’s own words—they put the children in those centres to break their roots, break their lineage, break their connections and break their origins. That is a marker of genocide and I urge the Minister to call it out for what it is—the Uyghur genocide.
The evidence was on the BBC this morning because it coincides with the visit of Ms Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is a rare visit, but the CCP has said that because of covid it will be a closed-loop visit. It will be in a bubble, and the CCP will control who Ms Bachelet sees and who she meets. That is another example of the UN being bullied by the CCP. Does the Minister share my concern that the UN visit, and any report produced, will deny the absolute truth of what is happening to the Uyghur people, which is genocide at the hands of the CCP?

Amanda Milling: The Foreign Secretary made it clear this morning that these latest reports provide further shocking details of China’s gross human rights violations in Xinjiang, adding—as I said—to the already extensive body of evidence. I understand the strength of feeling in the House. As Members will be aware, it is the longstanding policy of successive British Governments that any judgment on genocide is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) mentioned, this coincides with the visit by the UN High Commissioner, and we reiterate our longstanding call for the Chinese authorities to grant her unfettered access to the region so that she can conduct a thorough assessment of the facts on the ground. We are watching her visit very closely.

Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for once more bringing the question of the appalling human rights situation in Xinjiang to the House. The latest revelations are horrendous, but sadly not surprising. The Uyghur minority in the west of China have been systematically stripped of what few civil liberties they had, and subjected to treatment that this House has voted to call genocide.
We have known for some time that the situation in Xinjiang, so closely examined by the BBC’s John Sudworth, constitutes outrageous human rights abuse, and the House has dedicated considerable time to urging further action by the Government to hold the Chinese authorities to account. Today is no different. The leaked police files we have seen today shed further light on the treatment of the Uyghur people, with a reported shoot-to-kill policy for escapees from the camps and other securitisation measures that expose as materially false the Chinese Government’s claims that they are just vocational training centres.
The Minister will have heard the House today, so I will ask some brief questions. First, further to the meeting that the Foreign Secretary had with sanctioned  UK parliamentarians, some of whom are in their places today, what progress has been made on reforming the Government’s policy on genocide, in light of these disturbing findings? Secondly, what assessment has she made of the genuinely unfettered access that Michelle Bachelet will have when in the region? Thirdly, will the Government use the Procurement Bill and the modern slavery Bill in this new Session of Parliament to protect British consumers from complicity in the Uyghur genocide and support British businesses who genuinely want to do the right thing?
What steps will the Government take to ensure that the equipment used to carry out the repressive surveillance detailed in the leak is no longer used in Government Departments or public bodies in the UK? Do the Government plan to impose further sanctions on entities and officials who have directed or carried out atrocities against the Uyghurs, including those named and quoted in these documents? Finally, will the Government provide support and refuge to Uyghur people fleeing the genocide, including those fleeing third-party countries in which they are at risk of detention and deportation back to China?

Amanda Milling: Let us be really clear: genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process. I am aware that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met parliamentarians sanctioned by China, and the fact that that meeting took place demonstrates how seriously we take the issue.
On future policy, as I set out in my statement, we will continue to develop our domestic policy response, including introducing further measures to tackle forced labour and UK supply chains. On technology, we have a long-standing policy of not commenting about the detail of those arrangements. Finally, on sanctions, we have acted to hold to account senior officials and organisations responsible for egregious human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. We keep all evidence and potential listings under close review, but it would not be appropriate to speculate about who may be designated in the future.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on gaining the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, on having the foresight to grant it. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that in essence this is really not good enough. We have been going on about this for some time. The Government still cannot decide whether there is genocide—we, alone among all the developed nations, are stuck on a ludicrous definition—and it is high time that they did. Is she aware that Alena Douhan, a UN human rights monitor, was in receipt of $200,000 from China in 2021? That was unheard of in the past. Meanwhile, a UN high representative is going to China. What faith can we have that the UN will not be used as apologists for China? It is time we called that out and said, “Enough is enough. Unless you get direct access, we will not listen to a single word you say. China is guilty of genocide”?

Amanda Milling: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I reiterate that the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the latest reports provide shocking details. She also made it clear in her statement this morning  that it is essential that the Chinese authorities grant unfettered access for the high commissioner’s visit. If such access is not forthcoming, all that will do is serve to highlight China’s attempts to hide the truth of its actions in Xinjiang.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the SNP spokesperson, Chris Law.

Chris Law: The Xinjiang police files provide some of the strongest evidence to date for a policy targeting almost any expression of Uyghur identity, culture or Islamic faith and of a chain of command running all the way up to the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. That follows the Uyghur tribunal that concluded that there is proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that China is committing crimes of torture, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. We simply cannot collect more and more evidence of atrocities being committed; we must act now. What plans are there to impose sanctions on Chinese officials named today, including Chen Quanguo, who chillingly told senior military figures:
“even five years re-education may not be enough”.
Let us remember that he was responsible for many of the human rights abuses in the sovereign state of Tibet, which has been illegally occupied by China for some decades.
In line with recommendations from the Foreign Affairs Committee, has the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office begun engaging in dialogue with the International Criminal Court on the feasibility of an investigation into crimes committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjian—yes or no? Will the UK Government finally declare that China is committing genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang?

Amanda Milling: I have been clear on the shocking details that have emerged today, which are adding to an already extensive body of evidence, and very clear that we have been standing with international partners in calling out China’s persecution of the Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. We remain committed to holding China to account. It is important to note that our policy on genocide determination does not prevent us from taking robust action, and we have done that. As I said in an earlier answer on future sanctions, we keep all evidence and potential listings under review, but it would not be appropriate to speculate.

Tim Loughton: This is shocking new evidence: 250,000 Uyghurs detained; re-education camps; in one county, 12% of the adult population actually detained over a couple years; shoot-to-kill policies; and everything else we already know about. This is genocide. What more evidence do we need that this is genocide? The Minister referred to the meeting that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had with sanctioned Members of Parliament last month, at which the Prime Minister expressed surprise that we seemed to be out of kilter with other countries in the way we define genocide. He promised to look at that again and come back to us to see if we can reform the way the Government define genocide, in keeping with the unanimous vote of this House to recognise that genocide has happened. Will the Minister update us, particularly those of us who have been sanctioned, on what progress is being made on that?

Amanda Milling: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, there is a long-standing policy of successive Governments in terms of any judgment on genocide. However, I do really understand the strength of feeling. I am aware that he met, with colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The fact that that meeting took place demonstrates how seriously the Government take the issue.

Afzal Khan: The chilling report leaked today shows that China’s bloodthirsty campaign against Uyghur Muslims is showing no sign of slowing down. Despite repeated calls, the Government have been far too slow to act. Will the Minister finally—I ask again—commit to sanctioning Chen Quanguo, the chief architect of the massacre we are witnessing in Xinjiang? Will the Government use the Procurement Bill and the modern slavery Bill to ensure British supply chains are not tainted with the Uyghur genocide?

Amanda Milling: The UK has taken robust action. We have imposed sanctions, led joint statements at the UN and taken measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains. As I mentioned, we will continue to look at policies in this area.

Alicia Kearns: The genocide of the Uyghur people has been taking place on an industrial scale for decades and we should not be unjust to the victims by pretending that what we are hearing today is somehow new or not something we did not already know. China is not being held to account: the UK is still shipping in products made from Uyghur blood labour; Canadian Solar plans to impose its solar panels on Rutland; and the Government are still contracting firms that are complicit in genocide, such as Hikvision. Will my hon. Friend please confirm that we will use the new Procurement Bill to end the ability of China to build its tech-totalitarian state on the backs of British biometrics and data, and the blood of the Uyghur people?

Amanda Milling: As I said, what we have seen in the latest reports this morning is truly shocking and adds to the existing volume of evidence. We are taking strong action, but we will continue to develop our policy response and introduce further measures to tackle forced labour in UK supply chains.

Jim Shannon: May I express just how angry and disgusted I am? I feel a deep abhorrence and a pain in my heart, as everybody else does—I know that you feel the same way, Mr Speaker—as China at the very highest level has the blood of innocents on its hands. Given the overwhelming evidence of the atrocities being committed in Xinjiang, as is apparent from the media today, will Her Majesty’s Government and the Minister make an assessment of whether the actions of the Chinese Communist party in Xinjiang constitute genocide or crimes against humanity? I think they do, Minister—do you?

Amanda Milling: As I said, genocide is a crime and, like any other crimes, the position should be decided after consideration of all the evidence by a competent national or international court. But let me be absolutely clear: the latest reports are truly shocking, and the Foreign Secretary made that very clear in her statement this morning.

Desmond Swayne: Given the limitations and restrictions, the Minister cannot now have any confidence in the UN visit, can she?

Amanda Milling: As the Foreign Secretary made very clear in her statement this morning, if access is not forthcoming, the visit will serve only to highlight China’s attempts to hide the truth and its actions. We have been absolutely clear that unfettered access is essential.

Naseem Shah: There are cases where a man has been jailed for almost 17 years because the Chinese state determined his beard to be illegal and where someone has been jailed for having studied Islamic scriptures with his grandmother. We have now been made aware of reports that machine guns and snipers have been placed with orders to shoot to kill anyone, from the almost 2 million prisoners, who tries to escape those camps. What we are seeing in Xinjiang are Muslims being denied their Muslimness and the most grotesque and extreme versions of Islamophobia. Does the Minister agree that the latest revelations demonstrate the need for the British Government to take action and sanction Chinese officials involved in the human rights abuses in Xinjiang?

Amanda Milling: What we are seeing is truly shocking and adds to the body of evidence. We have been holding officials to account, and we have sanctioned senior officials and organisations, but we keep all the evidence and potential listings under review and I cannot speculate about future sanctions.

Alistair Carmichael: I suspect that the Minister gave a more revealing answer than she had intended to give to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), when she said that if there are to be restrictions on the UN party visiting the province, that would achieve only one thing: to expose China as a country that disliked outside scrutiny. That would hardly be exposing something that is a secret. Many of us hoped that that would trigger something more substantial by way of meaningful action from the Government.
Let me give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question posed by the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and the Minister’s hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who asked about Hikvision. Hikvision has produced the equipment that is used for surveillance in Xinjiang and it now wants access to our market. It would send a really powerful signal to say, “If you provide equipment of that sort to a place like China, you are not welcome in this country.”

Amanda Milling: On Hikvision, we are deeply concerned by China’s use of high-tech surveillance to target the Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang disproportionately. We regularly raise those concerns alongside our partners, including in a joint statement that we supported, with 42 other countries, at the UN. Over the past year, we have introduced enhanced export controls that have strengthened our ability to block exports of software and technology that might facilitate human rights violations.

Imran Hussain: Today’s reports provide further evidence—not that it is needed—that tens of thousands of innocent Uyghur men, women and children are being tortured and killed in concentration  camps as part of a continued genocide. Why? Because they dare to grow a beard; they dare to talk about their faith; they dare to practise their faith; they dare to be Muslim. All we get from Government Front Benchers again are words without any action. The Minister, the Government and the international community must accept that their continued inaction leaves international Islamophobia unchallenged.

Amanda Milling: The reports have demonstrated further shocking details, adding to the evidence, but we have taken robust action. We have imposed sanctions; we have led joint statements at the UN; we have taken measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains; and we consistently raise our concerns with Beijing at the highest levels. As I said in my opening remarks, the Prime Minister did so in his recent phone call with President Xi. We are taking action.

Marie Rimmer: We are talking about internment camps for peace-loving people, people who have a different faith from other Chinese people. This is once again about a Communist Government. During the past few months, there has been a rush from our Government to remove our dependency on the Russian economy due to its invasion of Ukraine. It is now widely acknowledged that the Government started that process too late. The World Health Organisation has even said that the Chinese had an ethical organ removal and transplant system. That was based on the Chinese Government’s self-assessment, and it is now accepted—they have everybody in their pocket, including, it seems over here. When will the Government start the process of removing our dependency on the Chinese economy? If we leave it too late, it will be too hard to handle. China will be even harder than Russia to tackle, so will the Government please get moving? What is happening now is not achieving anything. I ask the Government please to take the proper action that we need.

Amanda Milling: I have set out on a number of occasions the actions that we are taking. When it comes to trade with China, it is essential that the trade is reliable, avoids strategic dependency and does not involve the violation of intellectual property or forced technology transfer.

Geraint Davies: We heard, by way of example, of the case of a mother who has been interned and may be subject to the shoot-to-kill policy because she is associated with her son, who has been imprisoned for 10 years on the grounds that he does not smoke and drink and may therefore have leanings towards religion. The Chinese Government at the highest levels seem to have no respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy and are allowing genocide, yet we are not taking proper action on procurement and through the modern slavery Bill. High Speed 2 and Hinkley Point are reliant on China. We are selling off our microchips. Our universities are impregnated. What are we doing, in alliance with the United States and others, to take a concerted economic approach so that we stand up for our values and against genocide?

Amanda Milling: I have set out a number of our actions, which include standing with our international partners in calling out China’s persecution of the Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. We remain committed to continuing to hold China to account.

Fleur Anderson: I do not weep very often, but I wept when I heard from a Uyghur survivor about the forced abortion policy and its impact on her. It was horrendous evidence to hear.
The Chinese Government are simply not being held to account. There is no justice and no end in sight, despite all the measures that are being outlined. If this looks like a genocide, it is a genocide. If there is evidence that it is a genocide, it is a genocide. If the Uyghur tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC has found that there is a genocide in which
“Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs…have been…subjected to acts of unconscionable cruelty, depravity and inhumanity”,
it is a genocide. What steps will the Minister take towards declaring it a genocide? What practical measures will she be taking now? When will it be declared?

Amanda Milling: I understand the strength of feeling in the House today, but as hon. Members are aware, the long-standing policy of successive British Governments is that any judgment about genocide is a matter for a competent national or international court.

Robin Millar: We have seen the careful, deliberate administration of the abuse and persecution of minorities before; we know what it means and where it leads. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulty today. She has said on several occasions that these matters are being kept under review, so on the publication of the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the conclusion of her visit, will the Minister commit to the review of which she speaks?

Amanda Milling: As I said earlier, it is important that the high commissioner makes this visit and that the Chinese authorities grant her full and unfettered access so that the review can be a thorough assessment of the facts on the ground. We are following her visit very closely.

Rachael Maskell: John Sudworth’s BBC report this morning was chilling, both in scale and in content. I have to say that the Minister’s response is woeful. The reality is that she is the person with the power that could make a difference to the genocide in China. What discussions has she had this morning with Chinese officials since the revelations in these papers? What was the response?

Amanda Milling: As I have said repeatedly, the evidence that we are seeing is shocking. The Foreign Secretary has made it very clear that these are shocking details that add to what is already an extensive body of evidence. I want to reassure the House that FCDO Ministers, civil servants and diplomats regularly raise the matter; I have raised it with the Chinese ambassador in London, for instance, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it with her counterpart, as has the Prime Minister. We regularly raise these issues.

Andrew Gwynne: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The latest reports from Xinjiang confirm what we already knew: that appalling crimes, human rights abuses and genocide are happening to the Uyghur people.
I return to the issue of security used in this country. The Minister cannot just say that this is an issue of a commercial nature or one with security considerations. She is the Minister. This security equipment and these companies are being used by the British Government, their agencies and their public bodies. She could say today that we are not going to use them. Why does she not do so?

Amanda Milling: As I have said, we take the security of our citizens, our systems and our establishments incredibly seriously. We have a range of measures in place to scrutinise the integrity of our arrangements, but it is our long-standing policy that we do not comment on the details of those arrangements.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe:  Forced Confession

Tulip Siddiq: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the forced confession of my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Amanda Milling: The treatment of Nazanin by the Islamic Republic of Iran has been horrendous. Her ordeal was exacerbated when Iran made it clear that it would not allow her to leave Tehran airport unless she signed a document. A UK official was present to facilitate the departure of both Nazanin and Anoosheh Ashoori, and passed on the message from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that she needed to sign a confession. Given the situation that Iran put Nazanin in at the airport, she took the decision to sign the document. No UK official forced Nazanin to do so.
Iran has a practice of insisting that detainees sign documents before they are released. Nothing about the cruel treatment by Iran of detainees can be described as acceptable, including at the point of release. We will continue to raise human rights concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran, including over its detention of foreign nationals. The Government of Iran must end their practice of unfairly detaining British and other foreign nationals. We will continue to work with like-minded international partners to achieve that end.

Tulip Siddiq: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Every time I ask a question about the subject, I hope that it is behind me. When we celebrated Nazanin’s return in this Chamber, I thought I had asked my final urgent question about her, but this is now my ninth, after the shocking revelation that she was forced to sign a confession under duress before boarding the plane back to the UK from Iran.
For days in the run-up to her release, the IRGC had tried to make Nazanin write out and sign a document listing the crimes of which she was wrongly accused, admitting guilt, requesting clemency and promising not to sue or criticise the Iranian Government. At Tehran airport on 16 March, the day she was eventually allowed to fly back to the UK, she was again asked to do so by Iran. Instead, she tore up the piece of paper. It was only when a UK official told her that she had to sign it if she was going to board the plane that was waiting to take her home that she finally caved and gave Iran what it wanted. Nazanin returned home, but the toll on my constituent after six years of detention is unimaginable and unacceptable. I do not accept what the Minister is saying—that no one forced her. Nazanin knew that she could not get on the plane otherwise; the UK official told her that she had to sign that document to board the plane.
The human rights organisation Redress has written to the Foreign Secretary this week, setting out the view that the forced confession was
“part and parcel of the pattern of torture Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe had suffered since she was first detained in 2016 as it involves further infliction of severe suffering”
and that it appears that, in telling her to sign,
“UK officials were complicit in an unlawful act by the Iranian authorities”
in violation of Government policy. I do not have to tell the Minister or anyone else in this House how serious an allegation that is. Redress and Nazanin’s family, including her husband, who is in the Gallery, argue that it is part of a systemic failure to respond to the torture of British citizens by foreign Governments and to hold those Governments to account.
I ask the Minister the following questions. For what reason was my constituent required to sign a forced confession? Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister personally authorise UK officials to advise Nazanin to sign the forced confession, or was that decision taken by officials without their knowledge? What is the status in UK law of the forced confession and of Nazanin’s two convictions in Iran? How can they be annulled? Is there any link between the UK Government’s refusal to accompany Nazanin to her trial in 2021 and the forced confession? Finally, will the Minister acknowledge and denounce Nazanin’s torture in Iran and commission an independent review of the UK’s approach to the torture of British citizens in Iran?

Amanda Milling: I thank the hon. Member for her questions and for raising Nazanin’s case so many times in this place.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Iranian authorities made clear at the airport that they would not allow Nazanin to leave unless she signed a document. I also said that the UK official present passed the message on to Nazanin. Given the situation in which Iran had placed her, she agreed to sign the document. The UK official did not force her to do so.
Iran put Nazanin through a cruel and intolerable ordeal, and FCDO officials raised allegations of torture with the Iranian authorities at the time. We have not received a response, but Iran is in no doubt about our concern at their treatment of Nazanin and our human rights concerns more generally.

Robert Jenrick: The news that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was forced to sign this so-called confession is just the latest evidence of contemptible, despicable treatment of her by the Iranian authorities. In the light of that and all the other malign activities of the Iranian regime that we know of, may I ask the Minister why British officials in Vienna are currently supporting an agreement that would remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from the foreign terrorists list? Are those reports correct, and if so, will the Minister give me an assurance that the United Kingdom Government will not put their name to any such agreement?

Amanda Milling: What I would say in response to the question about the negotiations in Vienna is that we have reached the end of the talks there to restore the nuclear deal. The deal that is on the table would return Iran to full compliance with its commitments under the joint comprehensive plan of action, and would return the United States to the deal. This deal represents a significant, comprehensive and fair offer to Iran, which would benefit the Iranian people. Iran should take the offer on the table as a matter of urgency, because there will not be a better one.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy.

David Lammy: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I think that the whole House is hugely grateful for the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
It is right that the whole House celebrated when Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was finally released after four and a half years in unlawful and cruel detention by the Iranian authorities, but it remains the case that this Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have serious questions to answer over their gross mishandling of the detention of her and other British nationals in Iran. Nazanin said herself that the Prime Minister’s mistakes had had a “lasting impact”, and that she had “lived in the shadow” of them for four and a half years.
We recognise the sensitive and difficult negotiations that led to the agreement for Nazanin’s release, but it is incredibly concerning that she was forced to sign a last-minute false confession as a condition of her release. Did the UK Government agree to that condition, and if so, was it the Foreign Secretary or another official who signed it off? What is the Government’s assessment of how the confession could be used by the Iranian Government against Nazanin in the future?
The Government must also answer the questions about their failure to secure the release of the British-Iranian Morad Tahbaz, who remains languishing in an Iranian jail. Tahbaz’s family were repeatedly told by senior politicians and officials at the Foreign Office that he would be included in any release deal, but that clearly did not happen. In the House on Wednesday 16 March, when I asked the Foreign Secretary about Tahbaz’s case, she said:
“we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 945.]
However, Tahbaz’s family have made it clear that that is untrue. He was released for a mere 48 hours, and has since been returned to the “abhorrent and appalling” conditions of prison.
It is shameful that Iran continues to use Tahbaz as a pawn. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about it, and I received a response this morning. I thank her for that response—received within the last hour—but we must have transparency. Can the Minister tell us why Morad Tahbaz has not been able to return home to the UK alongside Nazanin and Anoosheh Ashoori, as his family were promised? What progress is being made on securing Tahbaz’s release, and what progress has there been on securing his release to the UK, as was privately promised? Finally, what progress is being made on securing a visa for his wife to end the current travel ban?

Amanda Milling: I think that, in response to a number of other questions, I have already set out the situation relating to Nazanin and the situation in which she found herself. Iran does have a practice of insisting that detainees sign documents before releasing them, but the UK official did not force Nazanin to do so.
The Iranian Government committed themselves to releasing Morad Tahbaz from prison on indefinite furlough. Iran has failed to honour that commitment, and we continue to urge Iranian authorities at every opportunity to release him immediately.

Alistair Carmichael: Today’s revelations just add to the horror that we all feel about the continuing treatment of Nazanin, but she is not the only UK dual national, in Iran or elsewhere, to suffer such treatment. May I bring to the Minister’s attention the case of Alaa Abdel Fattah, a UK-Egypt dual national currently detained in Egypt, who has been tortured and has been on hunger strike for 53 days? Will the Minister meet his family and make representations to the Government of Egypt, hopefully with the same vigour that she has shown in relation to Nazanin?

Amanda Milling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I can reassure him that the FCDO is supporting Mr Abdel Fattah, and is urgently seeking consular access to him. We are in contact with Egyptian authorities about his case, and have raised it at the highest levels.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Alyn Smith.

Alyn Smith: I commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for asking the urgent question, and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. I must confess that I had hoped we had spoken about Nazanin for the last time in the House, but I agree that this needs to be dug into properly. I salute Nazanin and Richard’s bravery and, indeed, dignity—an ongoing dignity—and it is a great failure on all our parts that we are still needing to look at this issue.
For me, this boils down to the fundamental question of whether the last-minute confession was a surprise to the FCDO officials. It was certainly a surprise to Nazanin. The Minister has said today that Iran has a long-standing policy of demanding or extracting last-minute phoney confessions. Was this part of the FCDO deal? I acknowledge that these deals are not whiter than white—I do not think any of us are naive about that point—but was this phoney confession, this illegal phoney confession, part of the deal, and if it was, who in the FCDO signed it off?
The fact that the UK FCDO was complicit in that illegality—and I will happily be told that that is not the case—will surely give rise to a deep moral hazard for other hostages elsewhere, and, indeed, for the credibility of the UK Government anywhere in any talks. If this was a surprise and was bounced on the FCDO official at the last minute, what protest has been made since, and what assessment has there been of what this phoney confession will mean for the security of Nazanin’s family who are still in Iran, given that it will be used as a tool by the Iranian Government against them?

Amanda Milling: As I said in an earlier answer, the Iranian authorities made clear at the airport that they would not let Nazanin leave unless she signed the document. The UK official passed on the message to Nazanin, and given the situation in which Iran had placed her, she agreed to sign it.

Rachael Maskell: Although the Iranian regime is fully responsible for the plights of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori over the past six years, it is clear that the actions of the  Foreign Office have not helped on many steps of their journey. Can we therefore have an independent inquiry into the actions and inactions of the Foreign Office that have hindered much of the progress that needed to be made?

Amanda Milling: Diplomats and civil servants within the Foreign Office have worked day and night to secure the release of Nazanin and Anoosheh, and on many other consular cases across the world.

Fleur Anderson: The Minister has been asked this question twice, so I will try for a third time. Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister personally authorise UK officials to advise Nazanin to sign the forced confession at the airport in the way she has described, or was that decision taken by officials without their knowledge?

Amanda Milling: As I have made clear on several occasions now, the Iranian authorities made it clear at the airport that they would not allow Nazanin to leave unless she signed a document. As I have said, the official passed on the message to Nazanin, but the UK official did not force her to do so.

Christine Jardine: What we have heard today is just the latest horror after six years of mistreatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe by the Iranian Government. No one is suggesting that the officials in the Foreign Office have not done everything they possibly could, but what we have heard today adds to the suspicion that we need assurances about the British Government’s actions and whether they contributed in any way to the difficulty in getting Nazanin home. Can we please have an independent inquiry so that we can be reassured?

Amanda Milling: As I have said in earlier answers, over all the time that Nazanin was detained and throughout the horrific experience she went through, officials and Ministers worked tirelessly to secure her release.

Andrew Slaughter: In 2017, the Prime Minister said that Nazanin was teaching people journalism in Iran. She now says that she lived in the shadow of his words for the rest of her time in prison. He has never retracted those words, and he has never apologised for the harm he personally caused Nazanin and her family. Can the Minister tell us why?

Amanda Milling: It was always in Iran’s gift to release Nazanin and Anoosheh. The UK will never accept our nationals being used for diplomatic leverage. The Prime Minister has previously apologised for the comments made about the case in 2017.

Hannah Bardell: I am delighted to see Nazanin home, and I pay tribute to the work and dedication of her husband Richard. As the chair of the all-party group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, I have met him a number of times. Nobody is disputing the great work that the staff in the foreign service do, but the reality is that the cuts that this Government are bringing to bear, along with the words and behaviour of the Prime Minister, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, created a huge amount of pressure and did a huge amount of damage to Nazanin’s situation. We need to understand  the details of the forced confession, but we also need to understand what the Government will do to ensure that British citizens abroad who are incarcerated or who die in suspicious circumstances get the help and support that they deserve.

Amanda Milling: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the point that our officials and diplomats work tirelessly on consular cases to ensure that those who are unfairly detained are released. They are working across the globe to ensure that we support our British nationals.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her reply to the urgent question. I also commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for all that she does. She quite inspires us in this Chamber, and we thank her for that. Does the Minister not agree that the media story and confirmation of this forced confession is a serious one, because the confession was seen to be signed under protest? With great respect, the thought that one of our diplomatic officers was present is a sobering one. How can we improve the service and support for citizens of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland overseas?

Amanda Milling: I think I have answered the questions in relation to the circumstances, but we stand ready to work with Parliament and the Foreign Affairs Committee on its inquiry.

Point of Order

Jamie Stone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, on Thursday 19 May, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport misrepresented several official statistics during a DCMS Committee meeting. The Secretary of State made incorrect claims about the level of public support for the privatisation of Channel 4, about how much revenue the independent production sector earns from Channel 4, about Channel 4’s contributions to levelling up in comparison with other public sector broadcasters and about Channel 4’s current and projected financial position. I ask that the Secretary of State comes to the Chamber to correct the record on the above and on any other misrepresentations that were made during the DCMS Committee meeting last week.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Members’ statements made in the Chamber or in Committees. It is of course important that Committees get accurate responses from Ministers and others. There are opportunities for the Committee to pursue the issue if it believes that inaccurate answers have been given, and I am sure it will consider whether and how to pursue that matter. I know that the hon. Member will not leave it here, and that he will pursue it through the other channels that are available to him to ensure that the record will suit what he desires.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Second Reading

Lindsay Hoyle: No reasoned amendment has been selected.

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The troubles represented a terrible period in Northern Ireland’s past and in these islands as a whole. They claimed the lives of some 3,500 people in Northern Ireland, across Great Britain and in Ireland. They left tens of thousands injured and they impacted all aspects of our society. Many across the whole of our country still bear the scars, both visible and invisible, today. That Northern Ireland in 2022 has come so far in so many ways is a testament to the spirit and strength of its people and to the vision, bravery and determination of those who forged the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. It is also a testament to the sacrifice of those men and women who went out each morning to uphold democracy and save lives, rather than those who went out to take them.
Looking around today, I see many wonderful examples of a transformed, inclusive, peaceful Northern Ireland, yet despite this exceptional progress, the troubles continue to cast a shadow over all those impacted and over wider society. Community tensions and divisive politics can undermine stability. This legacy of the troubles is an issue that successive Governments have attempted but ultimately been unable to resolve, because it concerns one of the most complex, sensitive and difficult periods in our country’s history, but we cannot stand by and do nothing; we cannot let the status quo continue. To do that would be a dereliction of our duty to the people of Northern Ireland and to those who served their country during that dark period. It would be a dereliction of duty to families across the United Kingdom who still seek answers about what happened to their loved ones, in some cases more than 50 years ago.
This Government recognise the huge challenges involved in seeking to address Northern Ireland’s past. We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations do not suffer in the same way as those who have gone before them. With every year that goes by, the opportunity to obtain answers for those who lost loved ones in the troubles diminishes further. We have a responsibility to ensure that children can grow up together, be educated together and understand all aspects of our shared past—a past that, at times, was bitter, difficult and inordinately painful for everyone involved.
The current system is broken. It is delivering neither justice nor information to the vast majority of families. The lengthy, adversarial and complex legal processes do not offer the most effective route to information recovery, nor do they foster understanding, acknowledgment or reconciliation. Faith in the criminal justice model to deal with legacy cases has been undermined. The high standard of proof required to secure a successful prosecution, combined with the passage of time and the difficulty in securing sufficient evidence, means that victims and their families very rarely, if ever, obtain the outcome they seek from the process.
We need to be honest about the limitations of focusing on criminal justice as a means to secure truth and accountability in relation to what happened to those who were killed or injured. It is arguably cruel to perpetuate false hope while presenting no viable alternative to deliver the information that so many families and survivors seek. That is why we are introducing legislation that seeks to address this most difficult and sensitive of issues.

Jim Shannon: The Secretary of State mentioned those who served in uniform. I remind him gently and kindly, but seriously as well, that my cousin Kenneth Smyth and his friend Daniel McCormick, both in the Ulster Defence Regiment, neither of whom were able to—excuse me. No IRA man was ever made accountable for their murders 51 years ago. Stuart Montgomery, a wee 20-year-old police officer was murdered outside Pomeroy—no IRA man was ever made accountable for his murder. John Birch, Steven Smart, John Bradley and Michael Adams, the four UDR men killed at Ballydugan, four men who served this country in uniform—no one was made accountable for their murders.
Secretary of State, you can understand the angst and the agony that I have on behalf of my constituents. I want to have the justice that they have been denied for over 50 years—in the case of the four UDR men, for 32 years this Sunday past. What are you doing to make sure that happens?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman gives a powerful and clear outline of the difficulty and pain that people feel, as he has just shown, in this very complex and sensitive area. He makes that point better than almost anybody else could. He touches on the very challenge we face, as we have seen over the past few decades, with the failure of the current system to bring that accountability, understanding and truth for people. As I will outline over the next few minutes, through this legislation we want to achieve an outcome that means people get the truth, with which comes accountability. He is right to focus on that for his constituents.

Tony Lloyd: Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have met many victims of the violence and the loved ones of those who died. They still want the Stormont House agreement to be implemented. The Secretary of State has to account for this. The civil proceedings on the Ormeau Road events revealed a lot of detail, as did the Kingsmill and Ballymurphy inquests. They all revealed truths that had not been known. What the Secretary of State describes as an adversarial approach to seeking justice actually works. This will disappear and he has to account for that.

Brandon Lewis: It is not going to disappear. What we are looking to do is to have a full, independent, investigative, article 2-compliant process. I will touch on that in the next few minutes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will just make a bit of progress and then take some more interventions.
Drawing its core principles from the important work and principles of Stormont House, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this legislation focuses on effective and timely information recovery, and the answers and  accountability that come with it, for both families and survivors, as well as aiding reconciliation and helping society move forward.
The Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to the veterans of our armed forces, security services and the Royal Ulster Constabulary by providing the men and women who served to protect life in Northern Ireland with the certainty they also deserve. Many of them, of course, are also victims, or friends and family of victims.
No longer will our veterans, the vast majority of whom served in Northern Ireland with distinction and honour, have to live in perpetual fear of getting a knock at the door for actions taken in the protection of the rule of law many decades ago. With this Bill, our veterans will have the certainty they deserve and we will fulfil our manifesto pledge to end the cycle of investigations that has plagued too many of them for too long.
I acknowledge the many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right  hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who have campaigned tirelessly and with great dignity on this issue. Indeed, I recognise that many victims and veterans groups more widely across Northern Ireland and Great Britain have campaigned for a long time for better outcomes for victims and survivors.
We were clear when we published our Command Paper last July that we would listen to feedback with an open mind, and my team and I have done just that over the last 10 months. We have heard the pain and perspectives of people from all viewpoints and communities. During those conversations, we repeatedly had to confront the very painful reality that, with more than two thirds of troubles-related cases now 40 years old, the prospect of successful prosecutions is vanishingly small, which is why this legislation marks a definitive shift in focus by having information recovery for families at its core.

Alistair Carmichael: In all candour, I do not envy the Secretary of State’s task. He describes it as painful, difficult and sensitive. All those words are absolutely correct, but this is not the first time we have been in this situation. Since the days of John Major and Tony Blair, the only way we have been able to make progress is to get everybody together to build consensus and then introduce legislation. It is surely already apparent from today’s debate that the Secretary of State does not have that consensus, so what does he hope to achieve by introducing this legislation?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. As I said, it is widely acknowledged that this is a very difficult and painful area on which there has not been consensus. There was not even full cross-party consensus on Stormont House. That is why there are times like this when, having listened to everybody—the political parties, the victims groups and the veterans groups—it is sometimes for us in Government to take those difficult decisions to find a way forward that can deliver a better outcome for people.

Julian Lewis: I think I heard my name in the list the Secretary of State read out earlier.
As early as April 2017, the Select Committee on Defence recommended a statute of limitation combined with a truth recovery process. One reason we felt able to recommend this is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 meant that no one, no matter how many murders they had committed, could face a jail sentence of longer than two years, which meant being released in one year or 18 months at most. So there is no question of punishment fitting the crime, and there is no question of it not being the same for service personnel and terrorists—the Act has already established that—so the question is, what will stop the process, because the process of trying elderly veterans is the punishment, rather than the sentence.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very aware that the Defence Committee has published two reports in this area, and they are well worth reading. They recognise the changes that mean the criminal justice system for these cases is not like the criminal justice system for other types of crime across the United Kingdom. The reality is that, after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we had the 1998 Act and decommissioning, among other things that I will touch on in a moment, and it means that we in Government are looking at what we can do, based on the reality of where we are, with a very difficult and imperfect situation that has developed through difficult decisions made in the past, to deliver a better outcome in the future.
It is also about understanding that, regrettably, a distorted narrative of the past has developed over time. This legislation will help to ensure that more victims and survivors, some 90% of whom are of course victims of terrorist violence, are able to obtain answers about those who caused it.

Jim Shannon: The person who killed Lexie Cummings, who was murdered in Strabane, escaped across the border with an on-the-run letter. Where is the justice for Lexie Cummings’ family, when his killer has an on-the-run letter, gets away with it and now has a prominent role in a political party across the border? Where is the justice, Secretary of State?

Brandon Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me just a few minutes, I will answer that very question very specifically.

Andrew Murrison: I applaud the intent of the Bill and I want to see the end of the harassing of our veterans—people who have served this country well in uniform. My right hon. Friend talks of accountability a lot. Where is the accountability in the granting of immunity to people who have murdered or seriously maimed other people?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the things that has been clear in talking to victims groups, and obviously one of the challenges of this issue is that different people, even within the same family, can have very different views about what they see as a successful outcome for their family, in terms of finding a resolution, or information and understanding.  With that information and understanding, as the Bill will outline, can come accountability. It is right that we have accountability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who was Chairman of the Defence Committee, outlined in his report, we cannot have justice in the sense of the punishment fitting the crime following what was done in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. I will touch on that in a few moments.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. May I ask him a linked question? Is not one of the problems that those who can be pursued through the courts tend to be those who were working on behalf of the Government, because there are records, which are well kept and in huge detail? There is little in the way of records on those who committed terrorist acts, on whichever side of the community. What, in general and specific terms, will happen to the letters of comfort that have caused such chaos in many of those cases?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes the same point, and I will deal with that issue specifically in a few moments.
My message to victims and survivors, many of whom have engaged with us since we published the Command Paper last year, is that we have listened, and carefully. We understand that, no matter how small the prospect of a successful criminal justice outcome, that possibility is something that they do not want to see removed entirely, and I know that, despite the changes we have made, this legislation will none the less remain challenging for some.
I want to say directly to all those individuals and their families that I, and we as a Government, respect the personal tragedies that drive their determination to seek the truth and accountability for the losses that they have suffered. I share that determination. The Government are not asking and would never ask them to forget what they have been through in the name of reconciliation. This is about finding a way to obtain information and provide accountability more quickly and comprehensively than the current system can and in a way that aids reconciliation both for them and for the whole of Northern Ireland.
I am immensely grateful to the many people who have engaged with us, sharing their deeply moving experiences and helping us to understand the sheer frustration and hurt that they feel over the loss of loved ones. Every tragedy remains raw, as we have seen even this afternoon in this Chamber, with the pain of many as strong today as it was on the day it happened.

Stephen Farry: I have a question about engagement with the Command Paper. The Secretary of State will know that virtually every victims group and every political party had major concerns about that. With whom have the Secretary of State and his officials engaged on the details of the revised legislation? As far as I can see, not a single victims group in Northern Ireland has been engaged with on the details, never mind supports it. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which the Government have a statutory duty to consult, have not been engaged with.  The political parties in Northern Ireland have not been engaged with. So who exactly have the Government engaged with on the Bill before us today specifically?

Brandon Lewis: I do not recognise that description of events from the hon. Gentleman. There has been wide engagement on this, both with the political parties, including his own just last week, and with parties more widely.
The first part of the Bill provides that, for the purposes of this legislation, the period of the troubles is defined as beginning on 1 January 1966 and ending on 10 April 1998—the date of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Part 2 provides for the establishment of a new independent commission for information recovery, tasked with carrying out robust, effective and thorough investigations into the deaths and injuries that occurred during the troubles, for the primary purpose of information recovery.
We recognise the importance of the new commission being able to deliver its functions with absolute independence. This will be crucial to gaining the trust of families, survivors and individuals who decide to engage in the information recovery process. That is why the UK Government will have absolutely no involvement in the commission’s decision-making process. The new commission will have all the necessary policing powers to conduct its own thorough investigations, including the ability to compel witnesses and test forensics. The body will be supported for the first time by a legal requirement for full disclosure from UK Government Departments, security services and arm’s length bodies to make sure that it can gather all the evidence that it needs to establish what happened in each case.

Bob Neill: I recognise that my right hon. Friend and the Government are doing their level best in good faith to deal with a sensitive and intractable situation. Does he recognise that the establishment of the Goldstone commission in South Africa, which is not an exact parallel but has similarities, was itself beset by considerable controversy at the beginning, but its ultimate success was largely due to the stature and integrity of Justice Richard Goldstone as its chair? He was a former Supreme Court judge of South Africa and a former prosecutor for the international tribunals in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda, so a man of impeccable integrity and independence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, when we look for someone to be the chief commissioner, that is exactly the sort of person we will seek—someone with experience in these jurisdictions, but not necessarily even from the UK jurisdiction? Having someone of that level of standing will be critical, will it not, for the credibility of the decisions that the commission will be entrusted with?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is right in the example that he gives. I will reference another one later. Operation Kenova has been successfully led and was also regarded with some scepticism at the beginning. It has shown that a piece of work, if properly done by the right people, can gain credibility, acceptance and understanding. My hon. Friend gives a good outline of exactly how this can be taken forward in a successful way for people.

Richard Drax: I commend the Government for doing all they can to deal with this sensitive issue—as we have seen today. Having served in  Northern Ireland for three tours, I quite understand where the sensitivity comes from. If this commission is going to find the truth, the likelihood is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said, that on the soldiers’ side the evidence is there but for terrorists on both sides of the divide, it is not. How are the victims going to get the peace that we all want them to have when the truth is unlikely ever to be found?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. He is quite right. One of the challenges is the point about balance that I made a few moments ago. As we go forward it is important, first, that records will be made available in a way that they have not been made before, going beyond what we have done before with a legal duty for the first time on Government Departments, agencies and bodies, which will mean that a whole range of information will be available for the commission to look at. Of course, if people come forward with information, particularly in a demand-led process, as I will outline in a few moments, it will provide an opportunity for people to seek the investigation of crimes by an investigatory body with the right kinds of powers. Those crimes were committed in the vast majority, as he has rightly outlined, by terrorists who went out to do harm in Northern Ireland.
We as a Government accept that, as part of this process, information will be released into the public domain that may well be uncomfortable for everyone. It is important that we as a Government acknowledge our shortcomings, as we have done previously in relation to that immensely challenging period. It is also important, as hon. Friends have said this afternoon, that others do the same. Some families have told us that they do not want to revisit the past, and we must respect that. The new commission will therefore be demand-led, taking forward investigations if requested to do so by survivors or the families of those who lost their lives. The Secretary of State will also be able to request a review, ensuring that the Government can fulfil their obligations under the European convention on human rights.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State used an interesting phrase when he said that others must play their part. On the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we have heard evidence of hundreds of people being murdered along the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland but the terrorists having then fled to the safety of the Republic of Ireland for sanctuary and stayed there. What assistance, if any, has the Republic of Ireland given? Will any evidence that is gathered there never be made available to the commission in Northern Ireland? Will we therefore have a blindsided, one-sided process that does not allow the Republic of Ireland to be held to account for its covering over and hiding of terrorists for decades?

Brandon Lewis: I know that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues have previously raised cases with both me and the Irish Government. One thing that was outlined in the papers that were signed off and agreed by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Government around a year ago was that the Irish Government also committed to bringing forward legislation in Ireland on information recovery, to deal with that very point.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Where is it?

Brandon Lewis: I have not seen it yet, but I hope we will soon see something from the Irish Government to ensure that in both jurisdictions we are working to make sure that people have as much access to information as possible.
Written reports of the commission’s findings will be provided to the families or survivors who request an investigation. The reports will also be made publicly available, to provide accountability by ensuring that wider society can access the commission’s findings and understand and acknowledge the events of the past.
After we published our Command Paper, many individuals and organisations told us that an unconditional statute of limitations for all troubles-related offences was just too painful to accept. They said that we must not close the door on the possibility of prosecutions, however remote the chances might be. We have also heard from those in our veterans community who are uncomfortable with any perceived moral equivalence between those who went out to protect life and uphold the rule of law and terrorists who were intent on causing harm. Of course, there never could be a moral equivalence of that type.
For the reasons I have just set out, we have adjusted our approach to make this a conditional model. To gain immunity, individuals must provide, if asked, an account to the new commission that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. That condition draws parallels with aspects of the truth and reconciliation commission that was implemented in South Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) outlined. The commission will require individuals to acknowledge their involvement in serious troubles-related incidents and to reveal what they know.
Let me turn to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and others. The provisions will also apply to individuals who have previously been provided with the so-called on-the-run letters, or letters of comfort. When issued, those letters confirmed whether or not an individual was wanted by the police, based on evidence held at that time. However, I want to be crystal clear that the letters have absolutely no legal standing and cannot be used to prevent prosecution under this new approach.

Gregory Campbell: On the OTR letters, some of us stated at the time, and have done since, that the only way that the people of Northern Ireland and across the UK will be able to understand and believe that the OTR letters are null and void is when a person in receipt of such a letter stands in a court of law and the judge says, “Irrelevant. The case will proceed.”

Brandon Lewis: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why I made the point I just made, which I will repeat because I want to be absolutely clear about this: these letters have no legal standing. They cannot and will not be accepted and they cannot be used to prevent prosecution under this new approach. The new body’s investigations will continue regardless of people holding those kind of letters.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I am just going to make a bit of progress.
It is crucial that people with the right level of expertise take the important decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst outlined. That is why a judge-led panel will make the decisions about whether immunity should be awarded, aided by guidance that we will publish prior to any such decisions being made.
The introduction of this legislation is firmly in the context of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the decisions taken as a result of that agreement in the name of peace and reconciliation, outlined by others this afternoon, that have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences.

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me ask my right hon. Friend a specific question. If somebody who committed a terrorist act appears before the truth and reconciliation commission and, during that appearance, talks a lot about what happened and names names, including the name of somebody who was involved in such a crime with them but refuses to give evidence to the commission, will the courts use the evidence provided as part of the truth and reconciliation process to prosecute the individual who refuses to testify before the commission?

Brandon Lewis: Yes. I will go further: as we will outline in guidance, people will not be able to benefit if they come forward at the last moment. They have to engage at the point when they are asked. The short answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes.

Mark Francois: I welcome the fact that after four years and two general election manifestos, the Government have finally brought forward the Bill that they have been promising the House for so long, but will the Secretary of State reassure me and my colleagues on one very important point? There are suggestions that the reconciliation process could take five years or longer. Many of our veterans are in the autumn of their lives, many are in poor health and some may well pass away before we get to that point. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and the House that this legislation, which was advertised as bringing vexatious prosecutions to an end, will not actually institutionalise precisely that problem?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, I can give that assurance. As will be shown throughout the Bill’s passage, we are absolutely determined that it does not institutionalise the kind of problem that we are seeking to resolve, as well as, obviously, looking to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I shall take one more intervention and then make a fair bit of progress.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Secretary of State allowing this intervention. On the matter of the on-the-runs, can he confirm that Rita O’Hare is still wanted by the authorities for her deeds in respect of the murder of British personnel? Can he confirm that an elected representative in Northern Ireland holds an OTR letter?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not going to comment on particular cases, but I will say again that the so-called on-the-run letters have no basis in law and will not prevent or play a part in the process that we are outlining in this Bill. If somebody is in possession of one of those letters, they will still be subject to this legislation and, potentially, to prosecution.
As I have outlined, as a country we have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences. We have seen the early release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the process of secretly decommissioning weapons, and of course there is already an effective amnesty for those who provide information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains. Although the Government believe that the difficult decisions taken at those points were absolutely right for the peace process, the overall approach to addressing legacy issues has not since been adjusted to reflect those very decisions.
We cannot simply pretend that things did not happen or that challenging compromises were not rightly made. As a result, the context in which we approach these issues is fundamentally different from that for any other crime across the country. The Bill strikes a balance between a focus on information recovery through an investigative process that is compliant with international obligations, and ensuring that those who choose not to engage will remain liable to prosecution, should the evidence exist. The provisions will apply to everyone equally.
Part 3 of the Bill details the impact of the proposals on ongoing and future proceedings within the current criminal, civil, inquest and police complaints systems. From the date the Bill comes into force, no other organisation in the UK, apart from the new information recovery commission, will be able to take forward a criminal investigation into a troubles-related incident.

Bob Neill: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the criminal justice point?

Brandon Lewis: Just a moment.
Any existing cases in which a decision has been taken to prosecute will be allowed to continue to their conclusion. Future prosecutions will remain a possibility for those involved in offences connected to a death or serious injury, if they do not actively come forward. We have listened to the concerns expressed, following the publication of our Command Paper, about active civil claims and inquests, which is why we no longer propose to bring them to an immediate end. Civil claims that had already been filed with the courts before the Bill was introduced will be allowed to continue, but new cases will be barred. Inquests that have reached an advanced stage by 1 May next year, or the date on which the new commission becomes operational, will continue. New and existing inquests that have not reached an advanced stage by that point will not continue in the coronial system, but may be referred to the judge-led commission for investigation.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Will he help me on two matters? First, will he explain—this harks back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for  Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—how he envisages the interaction between clause 7, which will set limitations on the admissibility of certain material in criminal prosecutions, and the provision in clause 22 on the commission’s power to refer material? By the sound of it, compelled testimony and other types of material will be excluded, in meeting what I take it will be the full code test that will be applied by the relevant prosecuting authority.
Secondly, has the Secretary of State assessed the risk of satellite litigation by means of legal challenges to the decisions of the commission to make referrals? How will such challenges be dealt with?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes insightful points. We are cognisant of those things and will go through them in Committee and in the guidance that we will issue. That is why it is important, referring to his earlier point, that this is a judge-led commission, which involves very highly respected investigative individuals in the process.
While addressing the legacy of the past rightly focuses on those most directly affected, it is a sad fact that the troubles have touched the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the rest of these islands in different ways, including many of those born after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. It is therefore important that we think of reconciliation and remembering in a societal as well as in an individual context. That is why, under part 4 of the Bill, an expert-led memorialisation strategy will lay the groundwork for inclusive new structures and initiatives to commemorate the tragic events of the past—to help us all collectively remember those lost and ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.

Stephen Farry: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Brandon Lewis: No, I will make some progress.
A major new oral history initiative will be launched. We will want to make this one of the most ambitious and comprehensive approaches to oral history that has ever been attempted, drawing on international models and concentrating on collating lived experiences and testimony and setting them within their appropriate historical context. The public, including academics and historians, will have access to more information than ever before. As well as opening up archives in a major digitisation project, rigorous new academic research commissions will allow for a fuller examination of the conflict than has ever been possible. This will be supported by a new official history, led by independent historians with unprecedented access to the UK documentary record. Consistent with the Stormont House agreement, these provisions will create opportunities for people from all backgrounds, particularly those who may not have been heard before, to share their experiences and perspectives relating to the troubles and to learn about those of others.
The legislation we are bringing forward will implement a legally robust and effective information recovery process that will provide answers to families, uphold our commitment to those who serve in Northern Ireland, and help society to look forward, while, importantly, also recognising that those who chose, or do choose, not to reveal what they know should remain indefinitely liable to the threat of prosecution. We must recognise  that, notwithstanding the important changes that we have made to the proposals as set out in July last year, this legislation, I accept, will be very challenging for many.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) will hone in and focus on this in more detail in his contribution, but there is one point that I want to raise. One of the most difficult aspects of the Belfast agreement was the decision that, if someone was convicted of a terrorist-related offence, they would serve a maximum of two years in prison. Under the proposed Bill, that will now be reduced to zero tariff—no time spent in prison. Where is the incentive in all of this for someone to come forward and to co-operate in a possible prosecution process when they know that, at the end of the day, if they just hunker down for the next five years and say nothing, there is no downside for them because they will never go to prison anyway?

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that it is one that he and his colleagues want to explore over the period ahead, and I look forward to discussing this with them. However, there is a very big difference here with somebody having a criminal prosecution. One thing that has been fed through to us, and one comment that has been made in a number of engagements with different groups and parties, is that it is not necessarily about somebody serving time in prison, which, as a number of colleagues have said this afternoon, no longer necessarily fits some of the heinous crimes that were committed by terrorists during that period. It is about that accountability that comes with a prosecution if one is successful. None the less, I do recognise the point that he has made.
Trust and confidence in the new commission will need to be earned through its actions. As the commendable work of Jon Boutcher and Operation Kenova has proven, this can be done and has been done successfully in that example. As the historic Belfast/ Good Friday agreement approaches its 25th anniversary, now is the moment to move forward in dealing with the terrible legacy left by the troubles, to find answers for families who seek it, to provide accountability for the wrongs done on all sides and, ultimately, to bring understanding to the next generation so that they can move forward in peace in a society that has reconciled itself with the horrors of its past.
This is a hugely significant step towards enabling true reconciliation. In order to enable society to look forward with confidence, letting the status quo continue is just not good enough. Compassion and commitment require honesty about these painful realities and about the difficult compromises that we have already had to make and that we need to make going forward. The moment has come for us all to face these head-on for the sake of the next generation.
The Northern Ireland Office has recently relocated to offices in the centre of Belfast, which is another sign of progress and something that would have perhaps seemed unthinkable 20 years ago. On the building opposite our entrance, there is a quote on the wall that colleagues will have seen as they walk past, or visit, that establishment. It reads:
“A nation that keeps one eye on the past is wise. A nation that keeps two eyes on the past is blind.”
That is our challenge: to see how we can provide families and society with a way to remember and reconcile, but also enable us to look forward and to focus on a better future for all. I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, let me say that I am sure that colleagues will be aware that there are many people who wish to speak in the debate on this extremely important Bill. In order to avoid a time limit, I encourage Back-Bench colleagues to keep their remarks to about 10 minutes.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill. Since the Bill was deemed incoming, I have taken the approach of trying to find common ground, so that we can move forward; the people affected by the subject of this Bill deserve that. I have not at, any point, tried to tribalise or to party politicise the issues here. I wanted to put that on the record now because I will certainly be going on to criticise aspects of the Bill, but that is not what I set out to do in the first place. I thank the Secretary of State’s officials for briefing me on the contents of the Bill last week. Unfortunately, that was before the Bill was published, but I am grateful none the less.
We all agree in this House that we must find a way to resolve the outstanding legacy issues from the troubles. The conflict touched every family in Northern Ireland: more than 300,000 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured, and that was among a population of fewer than 2 million. A thousand of those killed were members of the security forces. Terrorist atrocities were also committed in British cities from Birmingham to Brighton.

Johnny Mercer: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have huge respect, has just misspoken. Three hundred thousand people did not die in the troubles. Three hundred thousand veterans served in Northern Ireland, and 3,500 people lost their lives. I am sure that he will welcome the chance to correct the record on that.

Peter Kyle: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting the record. Three thousand and more lost their lives in the troubles, and I apologise to the House for getting a zero in the wrong place.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement sets out that
“we must never forget those that have died or been injured and their families”.
In truth, though, victims and their families were left without a clear path to address their personal tragedies through the peace process. The Good Friday agreement was a staggering achievement, but is ambiguous as to how to eventually address the killings committed during the troubles. While this was necessary to reach an agreement to end the conflict, it left victims’ families wanting. In 2015, following years of failings, the five  main political parties in Northern Ireland and the UK and Irish Governments signed the Stormont House agreement. The result of months of painstaking negotiations, it provided a comprehensive way forward on dealing with the past. Its centrepiece was the establishment of an independent Historical Investigations Unit, with full policing powers to work through, in chronological order, outstanding troubles-related cases, and a separate independent commission on information retrieval. Despite Stormont securing the support of all elected parties at the time in Northern Ireland, regrettably this Bill jettisons that approach.
Northern Ireland deserves to look forward to a bright future, rather than living in the shadow of its past. That can only happen when those who have lost loved ones no longer have to spend countless hours searching for answers. The UK Government have a critical role to play in building a brighter future by building trust and acting as an honest broker to find a way forward.
Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide victims’ families with a process they can trust. In fact, it deepens their pain and trauma. Its provisions would set up a new body, the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery, to provide answers to families about what happened to their loved ones during the troubles. All criminal investigations, all inquests that are not at the very advanced stage and all civil actions would cease and be folded into the new body.
The Government argue that, due to the passage of time, we have a duty to empower that body to grant immunity to killers in return for information they have about their actions. There is still the possibility of prosecution for those who fail to provide an account of their actions to the commission, but the bar for immunity is set so low that it is hard to see prosecutions happening in practice. The commission must grant immunity if three conditions are met: the perpetrator requests immunity, they then give an account to the body that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief, and the conduct they describe would otherwise have exposed them to criminal investigation or prosecution.
I must be blunt. Such a low bar for attaining immunity is offensive to the families who have lost loved ones and, in many cases, waited decades for answers. I will illustrate that concern with an example. Raymond McCord was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in November 1997. His father joins us today in the Public Gallery. There was no coroner’s inquest into Raymond’s murder, no police investigation that involved or reported to his family and no public inquiry. Raymond Sr. went through two court cases to have information regarding his son’s death released. He won, but when he received all the information, he found out that of 303 pages, 296 were redacted. At the same time, his son’s gravestone has been repeatedly vandalised, an action clearly intended to deepen the pain felt by his family.
Across the House, we must consider today whether this Bill offers Raymond’s family as many new rights as it does his murderer. I do not believe it does. Under this legislation, Raymond’s murderer has the right to come forward and, should he tell a basic but realistic account of his crime, he must be given immunity from prosecution—an immunity that stands even if in future that account is proved to be false. He could even go on to write a book about it, and wave at the victims’ families in the street as they pass.
Those are the rights given to Raymond’s murderer, yet nothing in the Bill says that the independent commission must listen to victims, communicate with them or take measures to protect their dignity and health. Those seem pretty basic rights to me, but even that low threshold is not met. The situation I have outlined is not hypothetical. These are real fears that are frequently felt by victims and that cause crippling anxiety. We must be on their side.
Just as disturbingly, the Bill does not prohibit anyone who has committed or covered up acts of sexual violence during the conflict from seeking immunity. Máiría Cahill, who was the victim of years of sexual abuse at the hands of the IRA, has said:
“This bill is, quite simply, disgraceful. Government say they take sexual violence seriously. Yet they are prepared to grant amnesty to those accused of conflict related sexual offences either in NI or England. It is an affront to victims, to justice and is gross hypocrisy.”
Let us be clear what we are talking about here. This Bill could well lead to someone who has committed rape being given immunity from prosecution. None of us can even imagine the impact that such a thing would have on the victim.
I will return to that theme but, before I do, I will talk about how the Government have approached the Bill in the wider sense—namely, the staggering lack of consultation and care given to this incredibly sensitive issue in the way this new Bill was conceived, drafted and is now being legislated. For reference, in 2018 the Government ran a public consultation on the previous legacy proposals, which ran for 21 weeks and received 17,000 responses. That was the right way to handle the issue.
I agree with the words of this Government in 2018:
“In order to build consensus on workable proposals that have widespread support we must listen to the concerns of victims, survivors and other interested parties.”
In comparison, the process for this Bill, with its unprecedented policy of granting immunity for murder and serious violence, has lacked any meaningful consultation at all. The Government published the Bill a mere seven days ago. It is 90 pages long and, in the words of one victims’ group, “heavily legal”. Yet, regrettably, the Northern Ireland Office refused to give detailed briefings to victims’ groups until today’s debate. That has caused not only hurt but confusion about what the Bill is offering. It damages rather than builds trust.
There seems to be a dismissive attitude towards prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill. Let us take the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was set up by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement specifically to safeguard rights in Northern Ireland. Its advice on the Bill was not asked for, and yesterday it announced that it appears incompatible with our human rights commitments. It read the Bill at the same time last week that the rest of us did. Had it been consulted before—that is, after all, part of the purpose for which it was founded—the Bill could have avoided some of the stinging criticism it is currently receiving.
Similarly, the Bill will have material consequences for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the judiciary. Both currently manage legacy cases, yet neither seems to have been given advance notice that the Government were planning to strip them of their role with almost immediate effect. The Irish Government, our partners in the peace process and co-signatories to the Belfast/Good  Friday agreement, did not see the Bill until it was published. They have now said they cannot support it in its current form.
With the greatest of respect to the Secretary of State, consistent polling has shown that the UK Government are now the least trusted actor in Northern Ireland. Rushing these proposals into Parliament here in Westminster has already damaged the reconciliation we are all aiming for. I understand that the Secretary of State is trying his best to find a way forward, but any proposal to deal with legacy must have victims and communities in Northern Ireland at its heart.

Katherine Fletcher: I want to build on the point my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made earlier. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission dealt with many such concerns and fears; I used to live in the country and I have heard first-hand testimony from people who participated in it. What struck me as incredibly important in that set-up was the leadership and sponsorship of some of the greats such as Mandela, Tutu and other members of the community. I have listened carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State is saying and it feels very down in the detail, but can he encourage leaders in the different communities to give the Bill that sponsorship to get people to give it a chance? The truth is a nebulous as well as a legal concept.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful for the intervention. I have some understanding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; I was studying for my doctorate in South Africa while it was running and I followed it very closely.
The figures who the hon. Lady mentioned were not just involved in running the commission; they were all also involved in conceiving it. The figures who lead communities in Northern Ireland—some in the House today, some not—were not involved in this Bill or consulted for it. The only process that did that was the Stormont House agreement, which has been jettisoned by the current approach. Sadly, the key learnings from it have not made it into the current Bill.
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making about moral and political leadership. In South Africa, there was a huge, concerted effort to bring forward support from all communities, but what we are discussing is coming from Westminster into Northern Ireland. The provisions should be birthed in Northern Ireland and come through to Westminster.

Stuart Anderson: I do not want to pre-empt the rest of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—it is vital that victims groups should be at the heart of this process. I think he is going to come on to this, but I am just checking: what about the veterans? They play a key part and should surely be at the heart as well.

Peter Kyle: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is indeed pre-empting the remaining parts of my speech, which I will get on to as quickly as I can. He is free to catch my eye at that point, as he raises an incredibly important point.
What we needed from the Government in the run-up to this process was empathy. That requires listening and real care in the face of the most terrible tragedies. Let us  take the case of John Molloy. John was walking home in north Belfast in 1996 when he was stabbed to death in a brutal sectarian attack. He was just 18 years old. John’s mother Linda wanted me to put her response to the Bill on the record:
“Why is John’s sectarian murder in Belfast different from a racially motivated murder in London? If this legislation gets through whoever murdered John could simply get away with it. It is just wrong that perpetrators will be able to get on with their lives officially, given amnesty by the state, while we are left to cope with the devastation. We brought our children up to believe in law and order and it is so wrong that the rule of law can be overridden in this way. The hurt never goes away.”

Jerome Mayhew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that justice is just a word if it does not come to fruition? The current system is not leading to successful claims for the overwhelming majority of those affected. Surely there has to come a time when we have to try a better way. More than 50 years on from the start of the troubles, surely that time is now.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We are not talking about whether we want to move forward or not; the important thing is that we move forward in the right way.
Investigations are absolutely central to families being able to move forward and to the ability to deliver justice. The hon. Gentleman will notice from the Bill, which I am sure he has read in great detail, that the word “investigations” is mostly replaced by “review”. The emphasis that has proven successful in the past—from the Stormont agreement right through to the ongoing Kenova investigations—has provided, in limited circumstances, the kind of reconciliation, truth and justice that victims have requested. That is where we believe the future should be.
Currently, there are 32 files with the prosecution service of Northern Ireland as a result of the Kenova investigations. Not one has been picked up, because the prosecution service does not have the resources. There has been progress, and I am sure that the justice that we are talking about could be dispensed if the prosecution service of Northern Ireland had the right resources.

Andrew Murrison: I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s line of reasoning at all, but on immunity, does he not accept that that ship sailed in 1998—a concept, of course, that his party needs to take quite a lot of responsibility for? He says that justice is being denied, and I have some sympathy with that, but does he accept that as a result there has been 20 years-plus of peace in Northern Ireland?

Peter Kyle: Since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement there have been long periods in which politics has been functional, and there has been huge progress that had been inconceivable before. Its achievement was totemic. As I have already said in this speech, the commitments and aspirations in the Good Friday agreement with regard to victims have not been realised and we need to make effort. We are losing the generation affected by these issues, as has been said. We need to get on with this, but we need to get it right.

Bob Neill: I appreciate the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, but may I put this to him? It follows from my earlier intervention. I get the sense that he is suggesting that we return, where possible, to allowing a normal criminal justice process to take its course. Is not the difficulty that once immunities have been given, for whatever reason, there will have been a departure from the norms in any event? We are not, therefore, in exactly the same territory as we would be in relation to other offences in other places. That being the case, what alternative do the Opposition posit as a solution?

Peter Kyle: The alternative, clearly, was in the Stormont House agreement. Plus there is the additional learning from Jon Boutcher’s work on the Kenova investigations and inquiries, and the real desire among victims to make progress.
Of course victims are realistic about the chances of prosecution in some cases—what a lot of them want is often quite different—but the great thing that I have seen from talking to families who have been subject to investigations by Jon Boutcher under the Kenova system has been how it has been tailored and sensitive to the needs of victims, while being realistic about the prospects of prosecution.

Scott Benton: rose—

Peter Kyle: I am going to make some progress, as others want to get in; I am aware of your desire for us to get on, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To proceed with this Bill, we must be able to answer Linda’s question, put in the quote I read a moment ago, and be sure that we are promoting reconciliation and not further division. Quite simply, the test for a way forward is that it must provide more benefits for victims than for those who committed acts of terror. In so doing, it would also offer greater fairness to our armed forces and veterans.
Last year, the Government suggested a blanket amnesty for everyone involved in the troubles. The vast majority of those who benefited would have been republican or loyalist paramilitaries, but it would also have stopped any further prosecutions of veterans of our armed forces. The origins of this proposal can be found in the Conservative manifesto of 2019, which promised:
“We will continue to seek better ways of dealing with legacy issues that provide better outcomes for victims and survivors and do more to give veterans the protections they deserve.”
The vast majority of those who served in our armed forces in Northern Ireland should feel proud of their service. Over 250,000 personnel were involved in Operation Banner and 722 were killed by terrorist actions. We cannot forget, and we remain grateful for their service, but it is clear that not every action met the standards that we set: a very small minority did not.
From a quarter of a million personnel, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland has brought cases against six former military personnel for offences committed during the troubles. The vast majority of our veterans deserve the chance to talk about their service with pride. They do not need to be granted immunity; in fact, the very assumption that they might need it creates a toxic moral equivalence between military service and acts of terror. What has caused so much  anger among the Northern Ireland veterans community is the idea that there is no fairness in who is being investigated. The Bill fails to provide a fair and balanced system for veterans that recognises their service, addresses reinvestigations and provides welfare support. Delivering a Bill that provides more benefit to terrorists than veterans or victims is not fair to anyone.

James Sunderland: The shadow Minister has spent some time admiring the problem, but I believe he is very light on the solution. What message might he have for our security forces, our armed forces and our veterans if his party votes today against this Bill?

Peter Kyle: My party will be voting against this Bill today because of the equivalence it makes between people who served in the armed forces and those who committed acts of terror and because of the incredibly low threshold. We should remember that 722 service people lost their lives by acts of terror, and the people who committed those acts—against our armed forces—could get immunity from prosecution with the very lowest possible threshold. That is what we will be voting against today. A better process would start by listening, rather than forcing solutions on people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Peter Kyle: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

Iain Duncan Smith: I served in Northern Ireland, and I do not feel in any degree that there was equivalence between what I was doing and what terrorists were doing. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to clarify a point for me? He has spoken about some victims and quoted them, and in particular one who wanted to know the balance of what makes this work or not work. He talked about there being this equivalence with terrorists. Is the balance about punishment; is it about investigation, or is it about knowledge? Where does the balance in this lie for him? This is important. Instead of dancing around what is complained about, where does he think the balance lies for somebody who is a victim?

Peter Kyle: I have been very clear: I want to make sure that the rights of victims and veterans are equal to the rights of terrorists and people who committed crime in the era of the troubles. This Bill does not achieve that. Proper scrutiny and proper preparation would have delivered a Bill that did.

Scott Benton: rose—

Peter Kyle: I am going to make progress. The provisions of this Bill will also have the independent commission carrying out so-called reviews into deaths and serious injury. The Bill provides that the independent commission officers can be designated as having police powers. However, it is unclear when or how such powers are to be exercised, nor is it clear whether the reviews that the independent commission carries out will in fact uncover any new information. In the additional notes to the Bill, the Government set out their view that
“for the ICRIR to conduct successful information recovery investigations, which will in turn significantly aid reconciliation in the long term, it is essential for the possibility of a prosecution outcome to be restricted to those who fail to participate effectively in the truth recovery process.”
We have concerns about how much truth will come from this immunity scheme. Immunity will be retained even in circumstances where the account given is deemed as being truthful by the perpetrator themselves, but is subsequently found not to be in accordance with the accepted historical account. The immunity requests panel is also not obliged to seek information from anyone other than the person coming forward in order to verify the truth of the perpetrator’s account. It comes back to the point I made earlier about the lack of investigatory work going on beforehand—it should be leading the process.
I again put on record how this Bill is affecting victims whose loved ones were killed by terrorists. Jean Caldwell’s husband Cecil was one of eight workmen killed by an IRA landmine in Teebane in January 1992. Today, Jean says:
“I want justice. All this talk of amnesty has brought it all back to the fore again. What will they”—
the IRA bombers—
“tell that will be of any benefit to me? It’s so deeply unfair. My blood runs cold. There is no ‘amnesty’ for victims”.

Scott Benton: In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman suggested that rape or sexual offences committed in conflict during the troubles would be subject to immunity. That is not the case at all. Only offences relating to a death or a serious injury will be eligible for immunity. Is he happy to correct the record?

Peter Kyle: I think the hon. Gentleman needs to read the Bill for himself. There are circumstances in which people have committed rape and other crimes and the whole lot would be subject to immunity. These are things that we have taken advice on before saying them here in the Commons today and that are now accepted by a great number of people with a prosecutorial background who have studied this area. They are absolutely clear that this Bill does not contain the right measures. At no point in the Bill is there an exemption for people who have committed sexual crimes, and that is something the hon. Gentleman should look for. If he can point to a line in this Bill where sexual offences and rape are excluded from immunity, I look forward to seeing it.
The Bill also contains the laudable aims of establishing oral history, memorialisation and academic research on the conflict, but it is the Secretary of State who will decide the designated persons to take forward the programme. There is also a more fundamental issue that with such widespread opposition to this Bill from victims and survivors, there is a danger they will refuse to participate in any historical projects that come from it.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Kyle: I will make a bit of progress. On these Benches, we wanted to work with the Government to find a way forward on legacy issues, but the Government’s approach is to bulldoze their plans through without addressing the needs of victims and survivors. Alternative options, such as Operation Kenova, have shown that there is a way to handle legacy issues in a sensitive manner that delivers for victims, the security forces and wider society. The Government have the numbers to get this Bill through today, but I urge Ministers to reflect on  what has been and will be said in the Chamber today and the reaction that this Bill has received on the island of Ireland. Reconciliation is difficult, and as the peace process has shown us, it requires compromise. This Bill is uncompromising and therefore has lost the legitimacy that it could have had.

Simon Hoare: Just the first two Front-Bench speeches and the interventions from Members across the House clearly show the thorniness of these issues, their long standing, and their polarising nature in views, interpretation and, indeed, in coming up with solutions. At the start, I thank my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, and the Secretary of State’s office, for their courtesy and engagement with me as these proposals have come forward.
Because the Bill concerns those issues, it is uncomfortable, and it is tricky politics. We would all like—I agree with many—the majesty of the law to run its course in the normal ways we all understand, but that has not happened up until now, and evidence that my Committee has taken from the PSNI and others clearly indicates that there is simply a lack of investigatory resource and court time to deal with all these cases in a way that could be reasonably defined as timely.
When we use the phrase “the troubles”—it is one that we all use—is it not just too euphemistic? It is the sort of wording we might use for a slightly embarrassing medical ailment, but let us remind ourselves that it was blood and it was a period of fear, of people being maimed and of death. It was horror, so we need to deal with these things in a serious way.
Is the Bill perfect? No, of course it is not, and no legislation is, but let us not lose the good, or at least the intent to achieve the good, in pursuit of perfection. The Government need to be clear, and the House needs to be assured, that the proposals before us are fully article 2 compliant—that is a key test for anybody, irrespective of which side of the argument they are coming from and their own personal experience. Without setting a precedent, I urge those on the Treasury Bench to give active consideration to putting Treasury counsel’s advice on this matter in the Library of the House of Commons so that we can all be persuaded, if on no other point than that.

John Baron: Briefly, my hon. Friend is right. Many Conservative Members served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. He will accept that we in this place tend to underestimate the pain caused for many families by not knowing what happened to their relatives, the victims—some of whom disappeared altogether. We should also always remember that there has been a dearth of prosecutions since the Good Friday agreement, and it is not as though we have made great strides on that. We should balance those two factors carefully in the consideration of the Bill.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is right. It is a sadness that there has been that dearth, which has led to huge frustration and has compounded the agony. He is also right to remind the House that each individual victim or survivor or victim’s family will respond to these things  in different ways and will have different requirements from the process. We should be very careful not to resort to language such as, “This now delivers closure,” or, “This draws a line.” It will deliver closure, answer questions or draw lines only when that person is satisfied, and there will be myriad ways in which people will be looking for that satisfaction.
The Government are to be congratulated on the tangible policy evolution since what many of us recognise was the rather ill-judged, and certainly wrongly toned, written ministerial statement of March 2020. The Secretary of State and the Government are to be congratulated on facing into this issue. If there were easy solutions, by God they would have been delivered by now. If we want this to work, we have to make sure that this too-long-neglected issue is dealt with, and it has to be through this Bill. So much time has been spent on it and so many years have been spent discussing these issues that I cannot envisage—I could be wrong; I often am—

Gregory Campbell: Hear, hear!

Simon Hoare: There was no need for such an endorsement; it is nice to see the collegiate nature of the Select Committee burgeoning on the Floor of the House.
As I was saying, I cannot envisage this or any other Government, or any other Secretary of State, devoting future time and energy to trying to resolve these issues, so I am tempted to say that although the Bill needs some amendment, it will be this or it will be nothing at all.
As we know, the politics of Northern Ireland can be different and difficult and testing. I am inclined to think—this may be a strange way of looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope—that it is possibly a good thing that no one and no constituency of interest in Northern Ireland is claiming absolute victory or absolute defeat. To me, that would have suggested that the Government had got it wrong. There is within the Bill the potential for something for everybody who has a legitimate interest in this issue.
I will turn to a couple of specific points. On the programme motion, eight hours for Committee, albeit on the Floor of the House, and one hour, as I understand it, for Third Reading is simply not enough. Physically, this is not a huge Bill in terms of the number of clauses, but it is a mammoth Bill in terms of history and issues. A sceptical Northern Irish audience needs to be given full comfort that full scrutiny will be given to the Bill and the proposed amendments to it. I suggest to the business managers—such as the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, who is on the Treasury Bench—as much as to the Secretary of State that the Bill should be given at least four days for Committee and half a day for Third Reading. That would give comfort to those people who want to make sure that the solution is properly scrutinised.
My Committee will be looking at the Bill, so I do not want to prejudice its deliberation, but I will make a few observatory suggestions. The Secretary of State appoints to the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. I would like to see a parliamentary vote affirming those appointments, which would give the body extra legitimacy. On the commissioners, I would certainly like a seat to be reserved for an international participant; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the  Chair of the Justice Committee. He referred to South Africa, but there are lots of people with United Nations experience. Again, they will add credibility, independence, a new voice and a perspective that should give extra help to those people who are looking to get the proposals over the line and to invest their faith in the commission. There also needs to be an oversight panel to the commission, as we have with Kenova, which could include groups representing victims, the Veterans Commissioner and others.
We need to accept, with regret—I am perfectly honest about that—that Stormont House is dead. We can flog it as much as we like, but it is a horse that will not get out of the stable. It is gone. It is that ex-parrot. That is unfortunate, but it is true. The need for coalition building remains alive, however, and the need for the Government to take people with them is as strong as ever.
Clearly, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the Bill will work better if the Republic is engaged and on side. I agree with him that north and south are two sides of the same coin on this, which have equal weight and responsibility to bring forward solutions that are binding and that can command support and confidence. I hope that the Irish Government will try to meet in the middle, and I would urge them to do so, to try to build that consensus and that joint approach.

Bob Neill: It is a quick one. Building on that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of our relationship with the Republic reinforces the importance of the quality and international nature of the commission’s membership? Given that the Republic adheres to the same common law jurisdictions and has the same approach to criminal jurisprudence as we do, that would surely be a means of rebuilding trust in that regard.

Simon Hoare: I agree fundamentally with my hon. Friend. I urge the Secretary of State to continue his conversations with Minister Coveney. It might be a step in the right direction to say that one of the commissioners could or should be a nominee of the Irish Government. I know that that would be contentious for some, but in trying to build that consensus and share the obligation, it may—there is no guarantee—pay a dividend.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the hon. Gentleman reflect on what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box? He said that, more than a year ago, the Republic of Ireland indicated that it would bring forward something, but it has brought forward absolutely nothing. I do not think that augurs well; I think that it will turn a blind eye to the issue for as long as possible and do nothing, because if the veil is lifted on its legacy of the troubles, it will not be a pretty sight.

Simon Hoare: Well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place, referenced, it has taken two general elections and four years to bring this Bill to fruition, so I am not sure that we are in a position to lecture, or are entirely innocent on that point. As we all know, however, heaven rejoiceth when a sinner repenteth, and it is not too late for both sides to build that consensus and to bring forward either conjoined proposals or separate but mutually corresponding ones. That would be a good thing.
On clause 5, which relates to full disclosure, subsection (1) is absolutely right that
“A relevant authority must make available”
the items that are listed, but subsection (2) says that
“A relevant authority may also make available”,
which depends on interpretation. The relevant authority could have some information that it thinks might be important and of relevance to an inquiry, but that has not been specifically asked for and that might be unhelpful to that authority, so it might hold it back. I would like to see the compelling nature of “must” in subsections (1) and (2), and I am certain that amendments will be tabled to address that.
The Bill needs to give further thought to how the PSNI interlinks with the commission. I hope that the PSNI will allocate the about £30 million that it spends currently on legacy purposes to invest in providing resource and support to the new process.
In summary, this Bill is not perfect.

Mike Penning: I have listened intently to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and I do not think that he has really mentioned veterans much, if at all. As 15 May was the anniversary of Captain Robert Nairac’s death at the hands of the IRA, perhaps—I know other Members present also served in Northern Ireland—we should have more talk about veterans as well as the victims. Both are equally important.

Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend is probably right, but of course there were many veterans who were also victims, as were their families, because, as we have heard with the figures, there are those who died, or were injured or maimed. We will not help this debate—can I just say this gently to my right hon. Friend?—if we characterise it as one side being more important than the other—

Mike Penning: I wasn’t doing that.

Simon Hoare: I know he is not doing that—

Mike Penning: Well, don’t put words in my mouth then.

Simon Hoare: And I am not putting words into his mouth. I did reference the fact that the Veterans Commissioner could be on the observatory panel and the advisory panel, or scrutiny panel, to the commission. That would be important, but it is important, I suggest—and I know that he knows this—to get that absolute balance right.
There is a difference in view among the veterans community. Some have been arguing for a blanket clearance from day one. Others have told the Committee that they do not want to see that, because they want to make sure that those who did wrong are held to account—of course there are some who did wrong; the terrorists did everything wrong, but some of the police did wrong and some of the military did wrong—and they do not want everybody to be tarred with the same brush. So there is a difference of view in the veterans community on how we deal with this. I think the Bill broadly gets it right by making sure that one side is not favoured over the other.
As I say, the Bill is not perfect, but it does create a framework that can and could help. We do need more time to consider it in this place, which is why I make the plea for revision of the programme motion. After all these years, something needs to be done to try to ensure that progress is made. This is the Bill to do it. We need to be driven, I suggest, by that imperative. If anything can unite the House in this debate, it might be this point: what we should be seeking to achieve in this Bill is to ensure that future generations are not infected by the poison of this too long neglected and running sore.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Richard Thomson: Could I begin by thanking the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), in particular for the time he took to brief me on the contents of the Bill? Allow me to say that I very much appreciate what has been attempted here and the sentiment behind it. We certainly look to the memory of all those who lost their lives during the troubles, to the tens of thousands of those who were injured and to the families, relatives and friends to make sure that we approach this in the right way to get the right outcomes.
On 14 July 2021, the Secretary of State addressed the House on the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, and the view that he then expressed clearly was that the current system for dealing with the legacy of the troubles was “not working”. The paper that was published that day achieved something quite unique, I think, in Northern Irish politics in that it united every single spectrum of opinion in opposition to what was being proposed. We have yet to hear the substantive contributions of the Members who are elected to this place from constituencies in Northern Ireland who take their seats, but I suspect, notwithstanding the changes that have been made in approaches by the Government since then, that the Government may be about to achieve the same feat once again.

Julian Lewis: Given the length of time that this has all gone on, is it not quite clear that there is no way that there is a single solution around which consensus can be built? Therefore, the Government are left with two choices: either do nothing and carry on as has been happening, or come forward with the best solution they can come up with, in the full knowledge that everybody who has been fighting among themselves without reaching a solution will find something to object to in it. The fact that they are all objecting to it by no means means that this is wrong; it is the only way forward, other than doing nothing.

Richard Thomson: I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. He is certainly correct that this is a very difficult and intractable set of issues that need to be navigated through, but if he really imagines that by introducing this Bill the Government are in some way cutting the Gordian knot, he is very sadly mistaken. I do not think that that kind of approach is the one that could yield the greatest amount of fruit. I do not believe that it needed to be the case that this was the outcome.
Stormont House was not agreed by everybody, but nevertheless it did provide a platform for a potential route forward. By failing to try to establish and build on what consensus there was in that, we are highly unlikely to reveal truth satisfactorily and we are certainly not creating the conditions whereby reconciliation might be achieved.
It is fair to say—certainly from the representations that I have received, particularly over the last 48 to 72 hours, from groups in civil society in Northern Ireland and from those who take an interest in the law and its application—that confidence in this process and this legislation is low. It is not being helped by the fact that we are here to discuss the Bill on Second Reading just days after it was announced formally in the Queen’s Speech. To only have two days in Committee here is, I think, thoroughly inadequate for the parliamentary scrutiny that a Bill of this kind deserves. It certainly does not pay the respect that I believe is due to victims groups and those with a stake in the outcomes here, in and across the island of Ireland and in veterans communities, to try to get us to a place of closer consensus.
In responding to the statement on 14 July, I was clear that I felt Ministers needed to think again about introducing any statutes of limitations or effective amnesties. I was also clear that, whatever proposals were eventually brought to the House, where independent prosecutors considered that there was sufficiency of evidence, a likelihood of a successful conviction and, most important of all, it was in the public interest to do so, they would still be able to bring those prosecutions. It is not simply about achieving truth and perhaps closure, and it is not necessarily about a prosecution resulting in a conviction; that investigative process and that testing of facts in a court of law, but even just simply the investigative process undertaken by the authorities, can in and of itself help to provide some of the closure that is required by the families.

Alexander Stafford: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about closure. I do not think that so far in this debate there has been enough conversation or debate about closure. Convictions are important, but we also need to make sure that the families of victims have the facts to bring closure—whether that is where the bodies of the disappeared are buried, how their loved ones were murdered, or if they had a glass of water before they were executed. Does he not agree that the Bill will make it more likely that some of these terrorists and people will come forward to give those details? It tries to bring closure for victims’ families.

Richard Thomson: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. No, I do not agree with that and I will go on to explain in a bit more detail why.
As I have said, the Bill would clearly make that kind of continuation of the judicial process and the process of investigation impossible. So the question that I have been left wrestling with is whether the approach in the Bill can work and, if it can, whether the potential benefits of doing that outweigh the very negative and real consequences of bypassing the normal processes of the rule of law. I have to say that I have reached the conclusion, and my group has reached the conclusion, that they do not.
We have very deep concerns about the manner in which somebody might be granted immunity. There is a real danger that the process set out in the Bill as it  stands actually puts more power in the hands of the perpetrators of past crimes or atrocities than it does in the victims’. The bar, as has been set out by the Labour shadow Secretary of State, is extraordinarily low in this respect. Simply to say that to give somebody immunity they have to request it but that what they then say has to be true to the best of their knowledge is not the sort of standard we should be hoping for in a completely open and accountable process of reconciliation and truth telling, because it means that there is absolutely no compulsion in there to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even if we did wish to remove the process from a purely judicial setting, surely the very least we should expect from somebody seeking amnesty for their crimes is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before such a panel or tribunal.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say, when he sums up, about the exemptions that are to be granted on the grounds of national security and what the independent commission should or should not do. Clearly, we would not want the commission to do anything that would imperil national security, but we can all see the potential conflict between revealing information that is held on file and the use of the national security clause to draw a veil over it. The process of reconciliation will require some hard truths, not just from the UK Government but, I suspect, from the records of the Government of the Irish Republic. Having that prohibition in the Bill potentially represents a further tilting of the balance away from revealing the truth and delivering justice.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the Bill is the way in which it seeks almost to bring down the shutters on families who have already engaged in inquiries or in the process preparatory to inquiries. To remove the rights of individuals to pursue a criminal or civil remedy appears to me to be in clear breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights, and therefore aspects of the Good Friday agreement, as the convention is hardwired into it.
My reasons for opposing the Bill are ones of principle, articulated by those with a care for the legal and constitutional implications of what is before us, as well as the many strong and clear voices of those who have been affected by the troubles. In the light of those real concerns, I remain unpersuaded that the goal of truth and reconciliation will be more likely to be achieved by this process, or that it justifies setting aside the norms of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the individual to seek recourse or to uphold their rights through the law.
I am also bound to observe the dismay of the Irish Government at the proposals. At a time when open dialogue and good will are in greater demand than they perhaps have ever been as far as the present UK Government are concerned, it is a missed opportunity to go about this process as they have, rather than try to find a way in which both Governments’ sets of records could be made available and open up a process applicable to all victims on both sides of the border.
Operation Kenova shows what can be done when police investigations into historical inquiries are allowed to take place. It is not good enough to point to the backlog in the PSNI historical inquiry unit as a reason for introducing the processes in the Bill. That backlog is  an argument for adequately resourcing the PSNI so that the historical inquiry unit can complete the work it was tasked to do.
I do not think that reconciliation is something that can ever be imposed. It is something that has to be achieved. The legislation is being imposed, to the great distress of many, and that is unnecessary. The Bill in its current form is not one that my party can support.

Julian Smith: The issues that the Bill seeks to address are some of the most sensitive and challenging in our nation’s history. Drawing a line under the past in Northern Ireland is a challenge successive Governments here have sought to address. As we have heard, recent work has been based on agreement between the UK and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties, with a commitment that law and justice matters are devolved and dealt with locally. That was confirmed by the Stormont House agreement in 2014, which almost all Northern Ireland parties signed up to along with the UK and Irish Governments. The Bill, driven from Westminster, overrides both the policy of Stormont House and the focus on consent present in that international agreement. I am deeply uncomfortable about voting for a Bill that will formalise immunity for those who have committed murder and other crimes, but I do acknowledge that none of the range of policy options for the Government is straightforward.
I want to focus my remarks on the fact that with the substantial policy shift that has occurred since Stormont House, now crystallised by the Bill, victims and survivors are deeply concerned that not only will they have to deal with accepting amnesties, but they will have to accept less rigorous reviews of their cases, rather than robust, evidence-based judicial investigations. Throughout the Bill, there are references to reviews, not investigations. The victims point to the fact that the powers in the Bill to compel testimony are weak; that there is a focus on existing evidence, rather than exhaustively looking for new evidence; and that prior investigations cannot be reconsidered. They are extremely wary that the UK Government will be the arbiter of every aspect of the process, from the choice of commissioners to what Government information is shared with the new body.
When I speak to victims, families and survivors, there is a consistent theme—a burning desire to know what happened to their loved ones. Take Shauna, who was just 10 years of age when her mother Caroline Moreland was abducted by the IRA and held for 15 days before being shot dead at the border, just weeks before the IRA ceasefire in 1994.
Shauna said:
“Without this investigation we would never have got answers. Operation Kenova has been important as someone else thought my mum’s life was worth something. Everyone has the right to a thorough investigation”.
Or take Kathleen Gillespie’s husband Patsy, who worked as a chef in an Army base in the city of Derry. On 24 October 1990 Patsy, who was 42 years of age, was abducted by the IRA from his family home. Patsy was chained to a lorry containing a large bomb and forced to drive to an Army checkpoint. He shouted a warning to the soldiers just as the IRA detonated the bomb. It killed Patsy and five young soldiers from the King’s Regiment. The IRA opened fire from across the border,  and many soldiers were injured but many saved because of Patsy’s warning. Kathleen has never had a full investigation, and she is devastated that the men and women who did this to her husband will walk free.
Many victims feel that they have been hit by a double whammy by the Bill—their route to justice cut off and, at the same time, their route to the truth restricted.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I really appreciate the contribution that the former Secretary of State is making, and I know that he is deeply invested in finding solutions from his time in Northern Ireland. We appreciate the work that he has done. I served in the armed forces and lost comrades who were murdered by the IRA, so does he agree that this issue is not simply black and white? As president of the regimental association of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I speak to many UDR widows who are crying out for justice and want the opportunity to have the murders of their loved ones investigated in an article 2-compliant investigation.

Julian Smith: I agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. The widows of RUC members, and other victims, are at the centre of our thoughts as we debate the Bill today.
Lawyers, victims’ groups, Liberty, Amnesty International, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and experts at Queen’s University also fear that the proposals will not meet the requirements under article 2 of ECHR and will breach both the UK’s international obligations and the Human Rights Act, which requires independent and effective investigations. If those fears are right, the Bill risks leading to ongoing legal challenge and a highly unstable environment for victims, which many argue would be worse than the patchwork system of troubles justice in place in Northern Ireland today. I urge the Government to look again at the independence and investigatory powers of the body and ensure that it can guarantee victims a full, thorough and legally compliant investigation of their case.
The way in which the Bill will shut down civil cases and inquests is also a source of much anger and worry. Civil actions have provided an effective mechanism for victims to obtain discovery and reparations. As recently as 2021, the Ministry of Defence had to pay significant damages with regard to the Miami Showband attack. In 2021, there was a review of inquest cases and a five-year plan for when each case would be heard. Many families now have the commitment from the justice system that their case will proceed. Inquests provide next of kin with substantial disclosure and provide families with information, answers and results that were previously denied. With the Bill, families who have been promised that inquests will take place risk having them thwarted just because of their place in the queue.
Those inquests have been shining a spotlight on new evidence. For example, the long-running inquest into the IRA murder of 10 Protestant civilians at Kingsmill has involved the largest volume of intelligence material disclosed in any inquest that has run in this jurisdiction. We saw recently in the Ballymurphy inquest, completed in July 2021 after 100 days of evidence, that the verdicts and findings of Mrs Justice Keegan were that the 10 victims were entirely innocent and the force used by the British  Army was not justified. It is important to acknowledge that the inquest system has sucked up significant resource, often without conclusions. I urge the Government also to look at that. There must be a fairer way of completing the current work programme and avoiding such an unfair cut-off point.
I return to the shift from the Stormont House agreement to the Bill. Many victims have had their confidence shaken by the lack of support for the proposals from Northern Ireland political parties, Ireland and the US. Policy content aside, key to Stormont House was agreement, buy-in and consent. Consent is vital when dealing with legacy at a practical level for cross-jurisdictional changes that need to be solved and need assistance from Ireland. Consent also has an impact on the ground in Northern Ireland today. The Bill is about the past, but it is also about the present. Paramilitarism is still a key feature of Northern Ireland society, and how issues of the past are dealt with feeds into the groups and organisations that traumatise Northern Ireland society today. Balance and an even hand are vital.

Laurence Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Julian Smith: I am sorry; I will not give way.
Above all, consent builds trust, which in turn increases the acknowledgement required for resolution. In 2010, when the right hon. David Cameron made his statement on the Saville enquiry in this place, he spoke about the long commitment and service of those who served in Operation Banner but, at the same time, he acknowledged the wrongs of that day. Bloody Sunday was “unjustified and unjustifiable”. When you stand in the Museum of Free Derry and see a copy of the former Prime Minister’s speech in the display cabinet next to the bloodied clothes of those who were killed, and when you hear what it meant to the people in Derry that the UK Government finally apologised, you get a real sense that that particular UK acknowledgement has made a tangible difference to reconciliation. In the brilliant “Derry Girls” finale—I am sure that all of my colleagues watched it on Channel 4 last week—the lead character Erin’s monologue on coming of age in Northern Ireland was set to clips of Bloody Sunday and, more importantly, David Cameron’s apology. It was a clear, modern reflection of the importance of that acknowledgement of the past.
Victims payment legislation has provided a further form of acknowledgment. When I visited the victims’ group WAVE two years ago, I was struck by the significance and appreciation of these acknowledgements to the patient and amazingly resilient victims who had lived with the most horrendous injuries over decades. Some of those whom I met on that day are now dead.
For Northern Ireland to come to terms with its past, there is a need for acknowledgement from all sides: from the IRA for the thousands of murders; from loyalists for the hundreds of killings; from the Irish Government for their role in the troubles; and for the killings and collusion by UK forces. Having spoken to many in Northern Ireland, I genuinely believe that there is the potential for achieving those acknowledgements. Acknowledgements will allow victims and families and Northern Ireland as a whole to come to terms with the past, to deal with the present and to give hope to future generations rather than passing on the pain and hurt of the past.
On investigations and inquests, I therefore urge the Government to pause and to listen to the voices of our valued Irish partners in the GFA, to Northern Ireland parties and to the victims and survivors. I hope, too, that the Government will reflect on how they can reframe the Bill to gain the trust required to help deliver a resolution to this fragile and unique part of our country.

Tony Lloyd: I hope that the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) will echo not simply around the Chamber but around these islands. The tone that he struck was the one that I wish to see, and I wish—I do not mean this personally—that it were the one coming from the Government. His points about reconciliation are absolutely fundamental. Like many hon. Members, I have met many victims of the violence and the loved ones of those who were killed, and it is hard to listen to victims without recognising their tremendous hurt and how that will continue to be there. They need to go through the knowledge process, which is so fundamental to their own ability not to reconcile—in a way, it is a very difficult thing to lose a loved one—but at least to accept that the state, as the arbiter of these things, has made every conceivable effort to ensure that their pain is recognised and moved through.
I can think of no victims who will be satisfied by the Bill. The Secretary of State cannot say that any of them are in favour of this piece of legislation, nor did he even try to suggest it. Many of the victims would say to me that the two-year limitation of sentences is already a betrayal of what they seek, and I have genuine sympathy with that. We can almost certainly balance that with the fact that the process led to peace. Different people have different views on that, but, nevertheless, even with that two-year sentence limitation, it is not about the magnitude of the sentence; it is about recognition that somebody has been held to account for the crimes that took their loved ones away or changed their individual lives. That is so important.
Do we have a victim-centred process before us? The answer is, simply, no. I really regret that. Yes, it is an improvement on the absolutism of the amnesty that we had before us only a few months ago, but it is only a very limited improvement. In any case, in five years’ time, we will have a de facto amnesty. In the short-term, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) pointed out, because of the very low bar on granting immunity, it is nearly certain that the amnesty will become the de facto process that applies.
I have to say to Conservative Members who campaign for the rights of veterans that it is worth reflecting on the over 700 veterans who died during the conflict, because they, as victims, also have rights. I think the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made exactly that point about those with whom he had served in the UDR, and we can take that across different parts of our armed forces.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: indicated assent.

Tony Lloyd: So there is a genuine issue about victims, but victims who were serving soldiers.
I have to make this point as well. I have listened to this debate over many years. One of the things I find intriguing is that when I talk to former members of the  RUC, the PSNI and the armed forces they will say to me very directly that those who were culpable of criminal acts should be prosecuted, because they offer no credit to those who served under the law and in protection of the people of Northern Ireland. The idea, therefore, that we pit the rights of veterans in some way in opposition to the rights of victims is simply a dangerous fiction and one we have to dispense with. Frankly, that lies very much at the heart of the Bill. The reality is that the Secretary of State has given in to what he perceives to be the demand from his own Back Benchers, but at the expense of the many people who could have been served by a much better Bill. That has to be recognised.

Iain Duncan Smith: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, I think he is mischaracterising the concern of those of us who served and who remember what others went through. No one has ever asked for immunity. Everybody has always said that those guilty of a crime must face the normal judicial process. That is an established fact. The problem for them is that, because they are the ones on which information exists, there has been a fishing expedition going on without any real evidence to start the process. Then there is an inquiry and it goes on and on for people, without end. That is the problem: it is the process that is actually the penalty, not the prosecution.

Tony Lloyd: Actually, I would not want to mischaracterise the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, because I have heard him say that before. I have always welcomed the fact—the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) made the same point and he is a very well-respected former serving soldier—that there is no demand for an absolute amnesty, and that those who broke the law should face the consequences of the law, whether they are from a paramilitary organisation or from those who claim they were there to serve the public good. That is right and proper. I recognise that that is the position he has always taken, but nevertheless there has been the demand elsewhere for amnesty as a way of simply saying, “Let’s move on”. That is precisely what the Bill will do. In five years’ time, there will be an absolute amnesty. De facto, there will be an effective amnesty under the provisions in the Bill.
We need to look at whether the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights. I know that for some on the Conservative Benches that is a contentious issue in its own right, but nevertheless we should be compliant with that convention. There is considerable opinion that the Bill does not conform to either articles 2 or 3 of the convention in terms of the need for proper investigation, in particular in terms of torture, and to make sure there is adequate redress. The Bill is almost certainly not compliant, but, in a way, important though it is, that is a lawyer’s point. What lies behind the lawyer’s point is delivering justice to the people who suffered during that period of violence.
There are other defects in the Bill that have to be established, because any system of justice, if it is going to satisfy victims, must have enough transparency and a sense of independence. The Bill simply has neither. When the Secretary of State appoints the commissioners, the process will already be undermined because it is open to political manipulation. When the Secretary of  State can direct the commissioner, for example in granting immunity, we have a very dangerous political precedent. The idea that this will be equivalent to the South African truth and reconciliation process is, frankly, a joke. There was a very different process in South Africa, one that was independent of politicians—that was important—and one that, of itself, allowed for challenge of the evidence brought forward by those who came seeking the amnesty process. That is why only 17% of those in South Africa were allowed that form of immunity from prosecution.
In that context, we have to recognise that there are many, many things that must change in Committee. In the end, we have to deliver something that is trusted. The words on reconciliation depend on trust. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said a few moments ago, the words on reconciliation need all parties—the IRA, the loyalist paramilitaries, the Irish Government and our own Government—to stand up and accept that things went wrong in their name. That process is important to reconciliation and it is not there in the Bill. In the end, it is important that there is trust in the justice process that, frankly, will not be there and is not there, because victims’ groups and politicians across the piece in Northern Ireland just do not accept that this is the legislation that will move things on. Unless we have that trust, we will not move further on down the road of reconciliation.
I will finish at this point because of the time and to let others speak. I hope the Secretary of State will now listen to the voices that have come here. This is not a party political division or a division on ideological grounds; it is a division because this is a bad Bill that will not deliver justice to either veterans or victims. It will not deliver the capacity for Northern Ireland to move on down that road of reconciliation.

Julian Lewis: I would be inclined to agree with many of the speeches made from the Opposition Benches, not least the eloquent one from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), if it were not for one salient fact. As part of the peace superstructure, in 1998 the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill was passed. That Bill put an end to the argument that we must not treat terrorists on the same level as security forces, because it does that in one sense only, which is that everybody is treated equally before the law. It was often said at the time, “Security forces personnel could go to prison for life, but terrorists could not be sentenced to more than two years in jail no matter how many people they had killed.” I had a meeting with MPs from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin MPs, who pointed out to me that, as far as they knew, that applied to the security forces just as much as it applied to the IRA. And they were right: it does.
I think the Defence Committee was one of the first organisations, if not the first, to introduce the concept of a statute of limitation into the current debate. We did so in 2017 with our first report, but I had heard of the concept of the statute of limitation some 50 or 60 years ago in the context of Nazi war criminals who were escaping justice because a certain number of decades  had elapsed since they had committed their crimes. As it happens, a few years before I was born, the vast majority of my family in Nazi-occupied Poland was murdered for nothing more than the crime of being Jewish. I felt then, as I am sure the victims’ families feel now, that it would be outrageous for the perpetrators to get off simply because a certain amount of time had elapsed. However, there was a difference then, in that legislation had not been passed—as it was felt necessary to pass it in this context in 1998 —to say that no matter how many people someone had killed, they could not be sentenced to more than two years in jail and they would not serve more than a derisory few months of that sentence. So the pass has already been sold on the question of getting justice for heinous crimes.
We then come to the question of those who say, “Well, it is not so much the length of the sentence that matters, but that we should have our day in court.” There is another problem here: all these years have elapsed and people have not had their day in court, because there has not been enough evidence adduced.

Iain Duncan Smith: I tried to raise this point with the Leader of the Opposition and I pose it to anybody: what do people want? Do they want the knowledge of what happened or do they want the prosecution and the punishment? As my right hon. Friend said, the punishment is pretty much gone. The point of the prosecution is also gone, unless it is only about the knowledge—in which case, how do we go about getting the knowledge? That is clearly what this seems to be settling down to, if people are honest about it.

Julian Lewis: That is exactly the central point. There are perhaps two ways of getting the knowledge. One way is to go on as we have been in trying to investigate these things piecemeal, with everybody trying to hide everything to the maximum because they feel that they will be prosecuted. The other way is to bring in a truth recovery mechanism which, in return for the granting of immunity, maximises the possibility that the truth may come out.

Stephen Farry: Does the right hon. Member concede that a middle path is to have investigations, rather than reviews? That is what a lot of the commentary in Northern Ireland is focusing on. The prospect of prosecutions actually happening is very limited, but victims are looking for the interrogation of evidence and the challenge that happens through a proper investigation rather than, simply, a desk-top review.

Julian Lewis: That is precisely what the truth recovery process is meant to achieve.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Julian Lewis: I will one more time, but I would like to develop my argument, fascinating though these interventions are.

Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise, but I want to develop this point. Is the Bill not, in fact, about changing and tightening the process, if knowledge is the key element, to make it happen in an interrogative manner—in which case, that would be the way forward?

Julian Lewis: I can happily live with that compromise, if the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) can do the same.
In our 2016-17 inquiry, we approached this question from the point of view that serving and ex-service personnel were being dragged into court—because we were worried not that guilty service personnel might be found guilty, but that innocent service personnel would be found innocent only after they had gone through a horrendous process of trial, investigation, reinvestigation, and on and on. There are numerous cases of perfectly blameless personnel who, as a result of vexatious litigation, have found themselves being investigated over and over again. We have heard much about the trauma of the victim’s family, and I empathise with that totally—not least because of what I said about my family history—but we have not heard enough about the trauma of innocent service personnel and security forces who were being investigated over and over again. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear murmurings of support from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who knows more about this than most.

Mike Penning: It is not just about those who were dragged through the courts; it is about those who have been at home for years and years afterwards—I first served in 1976—worrying about whether a letter would come through the box. It is about the fear felt by innocent people as well as those who are being dragged through.

Julian Lewis: That is absolutely right. It is all about protecting innocent service personnel from the vexatious use of the legal process. As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, it is not the punishment, but the process; indeed, the process is the punishment.
In the Defence Committee’s inquiry, we were fortunate to discuss with four eminent professors the applicability of the statute of limitations. Of course, I do not attribute my views to any of them, but I record the then Committee’s gratitude to Professor Sands, Professor Rowe, Professor McEvoy and Professor Ekins. They made it very clear that any statute of limitations had to apply to everybody or to nobody; there could be no legislating for state impunity.
The professors also made it clear that international law required not a prosecution, but an adequate investigation, and that that requirement could be met by a truth recovery process. The one concession that I make to those who have been criticising the Bill is that the Government need to be absolutely sure that the truth recovery process that they propose will stand up to that test in international law.

Brandon Lewis: indicated assent.

Conor Burns: indicated assent.

Julian Lewis: I am glad to see the Secretary of State and the Minister of State nodding, because it is essential that the process stand up to the test.
As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), we can do one of two things. We can do what the Opposition parties want, which is to go on investigating cases more or less ad infinitum with very few prosecutions and even fewer  convictions, but with a miasma of fear percolating among people who know themselves innocent—particularly those who served with distinction in the armed forces, but feel the sword of vexatious legal persecution hanging over them. We can go on with that process in the almost certainly vain hope of convicting a few more murderers, or we can protect those people, but the only way to protect them is by protecting everyone.
That is what we did in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, so the Labour party, which introduced that Act, has no basis on which to criticise a Bill that proposes exactly the same thing, for the same reason: to put an end to this persecution and, perhaps, to increase the possibility that, through the truth recovery process, families will find out more about what happened to their loved ones. One thing is certain: the families are unlikely ever to see the people who killed their loved ones brought successfully to court. Those people are even less likely to be convicted, and even if they were, they would serve only a few months in jail.
Bereaved families are being asked to make a sacrifice, but they are being asked to make it on behalf of a huge number of former soldiers and others in the security forces who deserve to be protected from vexatious pursuit through the courts. That is what the Bill is intended to achieve.

Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He and I have parsed the course on this issue and the myriad alternatives within legacy over many years. I served on the Defence Committee with him during the 2016-17 inquiry, and the later inquiry whose findings were published in about 2018. We do not agree, and I am not sure that his synopsis of the views of those four academics was entirely fair; but I will return to that later in my speech.
Before I proceed, let me say that I thought the contribution from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) was the most powerful that we are likely to hear this afternoon. I think that it was motivated not by prejudice or political aspiration of one hue or another, but solely by the right hon. Gentleman’s emotionally charged and personal experience in Northern Ireland. It was rooted in principle, and I thank him very much for it.
I have been thinking back to a debate that we had in Westminster Hall about proposals for legacy, and I was reading some of the speeches in Hansard this morning. I recalled a radio interview that I had heard on the morning of that debate. Alan McBride, a victims’ campaigner from Northern Ireland and a victim himself, was talking about a day of reflection for victims in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. He said, “When we were thinking about a day of reflection in Belfast, we tried to find one day—one date—when nobody died.” They could not find one. They could not find a single day in the calendar when somebody had not been killed in Northern Ireland. They chose 21 June, the summer solstice, because that day heralds a new dawn, that day heralds a new season, that day heralds warmth and aspiration.
When it comes to our party’s approach to the issue of legacy—and, in fairness, the approach of the majority of parties in Northern Ireland—we cannot detach ourselves  easily from victims, or their experiences, or their hurt, or the lingering fears and doubts that pervade our society. I know that it is easy for others in the Chamber to take a more “singular” view—a singular constituency-based view, or a single veteran’s view—but we cannot do that. A principle that we have applied throughout the myriad decades of consideration about legacy has been one that keeps open the hope of justice, no matter how easily those who have spoken today have tried to detach us from it. It keeps open the pursuit of justice, of recognition by the state that what happened to people’s loved ones was wrong. It is the principle that natural justice and the rule of law in this country still matter, still count, and should still run through our system. That is something that we have attached to every proposal that has been brought before us.
There is a second principle. I do not attach this to other parties, but we have never wanted to see an equivalence between people who lived innocent, peaceful and wholesome lives and were cut down in their prime as a result of terrorists—or those brave women and men who stepped forward and stepped up to protect all of us and give us the freedom to stand in this Chamber and political chambers throughout Northern Ireland, and to stand up for what is right and what is true—and  those who went out to destroy and wreak havoc in our society.
I am afraid that on those two principles, this Bill fails. I take no joy in saying this. I know that there are Members in this Chamber wo are thinking, “For goodness’ sake, Northern Ireland legacy again, can they not just agree?” We do all agree in Northern Ireland that this Bill is wrong, that this Bill will not command support, that this Bill drives a coach and horses through the pursuit of justice, although I take no pride in that.
We have been through the discussions about a statute of limitations. I chided the right hon. Member for New Forest East earlier about his revisionism—perhaps his fair rehearsal—of the approach of the four academics, but I said it fondly, because I have huge admiration for him. He is right to say, and the academics were right to say, that should anything be brought forward, principled and detailed, as a statute of limitations, it would have to apply equally; but the landscape in Northern Ireland is not equal.
We always advanced the argument that no one who broke the law could escape the law and no one who deserved justice should evade justice. When those who served our state and put on the uniform of our brave armed forces—whether it was the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or other organisations—were involved in incidents that led to a killing, there will have been an investigation. We know that, post-1973, those investigations were article 2 compliant. We have always advanced the argument that where our state can demonstrate that it has discharged its duty, we should be able to move on: no reinvestigations, no trauma and no fear of that knocked door, because the state has done what is required of it under the European convention on human rights. For whatever reason, however, there were too few within the system of government that wanted to embrace that argument. I say that the landscape was uneven in Northern Ireland because when the state was involved, an investigation duly followed, but I am  afraid that when the state was not involved, there were far too many deaths for which there was no investigation. That is how that principle could have been applied.
There has been mention of two years: the Good Friday agreement, the early release of prisoners and a maximum sentence of two years. Explanations have been bandied about today, including, “That’s just the way it is”, “That was proposed by the Labour Government”, “It was passed by referendum in Northern Ireland” and “It was ultimately put through this Chamber”. I will not be shy in saying that I found it obtuse and offensive then, and I find it offensive to this day. Two years—that is all. If you have served it, out you go. That is not justice. There were no cheerleaders for that proposal in Northern Ireland. Some accepted it as a compromise as part of the Good Friday agreement, and others did not.
How many times have we heard in the debate this afternoon that two years is not what we are talking about here? Read schedule 11 of this Bill; it will not tell you that the Bill removes those provisions. It will not be two years in jail; it will be nothing—no jail time whatsoever, whether someone engages in the process, seeks immunity from prosecution and tells the truth, or they do not. If someone sits outside the system, if they offer no answers for relatives of victims and their loved ones and if they decide that this process and this Bill are not for them, it does not matter because the British Government seek our support in this Parliament for legislation that reduces their time in jail to nothing. Who could be proud of that proposal? Schedule 11 does not even spell it out, but those are the ramifications of the Bill. Engage or do not engage—it does not matter; you will serve no time.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that these provisions are not something remote in the sense that they apply only to incidents that occurred in Northern Ireland, but that in fact the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 apply to terrorist incidents that occurred in Great Britain and elsewhere? They include the murder of British citizens in this city, in Birmingham, in Manchester and, indeed, in many of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members. Those Members need to understand that this injustice does not just apply to the people we represent; it applies to every single family in this United Kingdom whose loved ones were cut down in cold blood by terrorists, and that that capacity remains in this country to this day.

Gavin Robinson: I agree, and I hope that the point is not lost.
No intended time, and no consequence. With no consequence to not engaging in this process, there is no inducement to engage in it. I heard the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who has been fair in his contributions on the legacy issue over many years—ask what it is that people want. Do they want time served in jail or do they want answers? There is no single answer to that question— there are many victims. It has been said today that people just want to know the truth. There are victims the length and breadth of Northern Ireland who know exactly who killed their loved one, and they see the perpetrator walking freely through their town on a daily or weekly basis. As they walk the lonely path to the graveside to see their loved one, the person they know to  be responsible for their loved one’s death walks free through the streets with their family. That person still walks and there has been no effective investigation.
To bring the question into this House, how often do Members walk through the double doors into the Chamber and look at the plaques right above? There is commonality between each of those three plaques, because each gentle man stood for election to this House, each gentle man believed in democracy and the rule of law and each gentle man was murdered by terrorists related to the Northern Ireland troubles.
Rev. Robert Bradford was murdered by the IRA at his constituency surgery in Belfast South in 1981. Airey Neave was murdered in his car by the Irish National Liberation Army with an under-car booby-trap bomb in 1979. In 1981 Ian Gow was murdered by the IRA, again with an under-car booby-trap bomb. They were our colleagues and predecessors who stood up for democracy in this country, but they were cut down in their prime. What else connects them? Nobody has been made accountable for those crimes. The perpetrators have evaded justice.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Is he aware that the chief suspect for the murder of Airey Neave in the precincts of this House is currently operating a bar in Spain? He has eluded justice and, under the provisions of this Bill, will never have justice served upon him.

Gavin Robinson: That is exactly why I raise these issues. I want hon. Members to know that this is not just about cold cases that have never had a prospect of success in the courts. There are people out there today who are guilty of the most heinous crimes during the Northern Ireland troubles, against our state, our citizens and our neighbours across the communities in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain. They have evaded justice, they have fought extradition and they have squirrelled themselves away into the Irish Republic and, under the political offence exemption, have stayed there. Some of them live in the United States of America, and our Government have sought their extradition because they know they are responsible and they want to bring them to justice, yet they stay in their safe havens. And some freely walk the streets of Northern Ireland in exactly the same position.
Those perpetrators of violence, be they republican or loyalist, will be able to sleep soundly in their beds once this Bill is passed. They will know that they never have to spend a day in jail. They know that the focus will be on state cases for which there is information that will naturally run through the information recovery process. They will not engage in this, and there will be no consequence for their not doing so.
I say with as much respect as I can in the circumstances that the idea that our Government and this Parliament will pass legislation that allows perpetrators of violence who have evaded justice to retire in dignity is a disgrace, and retire they will. This Parliament has considered on-the-runs legislation in which our Government, at a request from the republicans, were going to pass measures saying that those who were on the run and evading justice could come home and get away scot-free. It was going to be passed by the Labour Government until Sinn Féin realised that it would apply to soldiers, too, and pulled its support.
After the on-the-runs legislation, we had the letters of comfort. I am glad the Secretary of State ruled out the application of letters of comfort today, but John Downey walked free from court as a result of letters of comfort. They were not issued by the Conservative Government; they just came to light after 2010. John Downey is responsible for the Hyde Park bombing that killed 11 service personnel and seven horses working alongside them. When he stood in the Old Bailey, he produced a letter that said, “You’re not currently or actively sought for investigation.” This Parliament has a history of bidding for the wrong people in my view. Our view will always be based on those who have suffered the most in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Government have got the impression that we will not be with them on Second Reading of the Bill, but the issues are far too important for us to say that we cannot have any part of it and therefore not engage. I want the Government to hear us loudly and clearly that we will be tabling amendments, and we will seek as much cross-party and cross-community support for those amendments as possible. I hope that if we do that in the spirit of good will and co-operation, the Government will engage in these thoughtful considerations about sentencing and time served, because getting a conviction, being out on licence and having all the freedoms that people enjoy while their victims do not is simply not sufficient. We need to rule out the ability of people who have actively evaded justice, and who the Government have sought through extradition proceedings, to come home and retire with dignity. I hope that we will get a willing ear, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: If we have speeches lasting 16 or 17 minutes, we will not get everyone in. Guidance was given earlier about looking towards 10 minutes, and I hope that people will now start to look to do that. Going a shade over is not too bad, but I just want to get as many people in as I possibly can.

Johnny Mercer: I have huge respect for many of my colleagues in this House, and I have listened intently to what has been said today on all sides on this issue, on a path that I have walked down for seven or eight years now, whether in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan or the unique intricacies of Northern Ireland. I have seen the difficulty with this issue laid bare today. I was the Minister who introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 that brought to a close the Iraq historic allegations team. Everyone understands that if people see someone commit a crime they want them to go to prison. Everyone wants accountability. To pretend otherwise is a huge disservice to the victims and those who serve in the security forces. That is to approach the world and this whole problem—it has been approached this way for the past 25 years—not as it actually is but as we would like to see it. We would all like to see those things. We would all like to have seen decent investigations from back in the day that would withstand ECHR challenge now. We would all like families to genuinely have hope of an understanding of what went on and have answers to their problems, but there is nothing we  can do about that now. There is nothing we can do. That is not my opinion; it has been tested to destruction in the courts and the justice system in Northern Ireland.
The process of testing that to destruction has destroyed the lives of some of our people who sacrificed the most for the freedoms and privileges that are enjoyed in that part of the United Kingdom today. I am afraid that colleagues in this space have to get real and stick to the truth and the facts. A number of comments that have been made today are, I am afraid, not true. I dearly love my friend the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. He is a great friend of mine, but what he said about sexual offences is not true. The truth is written in the Bill, and Members can read it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an incredibly powerful speech, but he mentioned collusion. Collusion has never been proved—[Interruption.] Collusion has never been proved in a court of law. If anyone would like to challenge that, please do so now. The suggestion that it happened is incredibly offensive to those who went out there to try to sustain peace.
I urge colleagues to accept that there are no winners here. There are going to be no winners. There is no social media clip that they can send out to the people who vote for them that will suddenly make them think they are the best thing since sliced bread and ensure they get in at the next election. There are no winners in legacy. It is a mess. The whole thing is a disaster. But we have to do what we can to bring some sort of end, finality and truth to this process for the victims. That is what I want colleagues to focus on.
Some Opposition Members have consistently said in the press that people want individuals to get away with murder and all the rest of it. It is a total load of garbage. I have always been clear, from the outset, and I say it again, that all I have asked for is fairness. All this Government are looking to introduce is fairness to all sides. I have never argued for those who operated outside the law to be unaccountable—I argue the complete opposite, because it is a foundation of our society.
There are those who continue this argument. I go out to the trials in Northern Ireland and they ask why I do not engage with them. It is because they are deliberately propelling a false narrative for political ends. That has gone on for too long in Northern Ireland and failed too many people. I am afraid I will not be part of it. To those people I say again today, as I have said many times before, that uniform in particular is no place for those who cannot adhere to the standards set and maintained by the vast majority of those who serve in Britain’s armed forces. We can find that idea espoused most by the operators themselves.
As I have said, the core of the problem is that people see this issue not as it actually is—a complete mess in which the state has failed families and failed veterans—but as they want to see it and as they want their world to be. If they were totally honest with people, they would say, “Do you know what? You’re not going to get the evidence up to a criminal threshold that means we will convict someone for your son’s murder.” I will tell the House why they have not done that: because it requires a level or integrity and courage that has eluded so many politicians in Northern Ireland. That is the reality that  is currently being tested to destruction every day in the courts. It is often said that it is not justice they seek but their version of justice. That is not my opinion; it has been proven a number of times—the evidence gathering was terrible.
If it was my family member, I would be leaping. I would be jumping up and down, absolutely furious if my brother, sister, father or mother had been killed in some of the situations investigated by the British state. The soldiers were not interviewed by the police, they spoke to the Royal Military Police and some of the statements were pre-written. It is a disgrace, and I accept that. People will get away with things they should not get away with. We can bemoan that all we like, make speeches and speak to our home crowd as much as we like, but it is never going to change. I tell you now, everybody knows that is true—the judges who serve on these cases, the prosecutors who promise convictions for bereaved and vulnerable families, the so-called community leaders who pump out this rhetoric without a care in the world for the damage they do to the families who are looking for answers.
Of course, for veterans this must end. They hound old men in courts over in Northern Ireland. Two weeks ago, I listened to what exactly the drills were for a GPMG—general purpose machine gun—weapons system at a particular moment in time 40 years ago. There was an old man on the stand and he simply had no recollection. It is a farce, and I tell you now: it looks appalling for Northern Ireland. It looks ridiculous for Northern Ireland, and it loses the credibility required to bring anybody along in the process. For people like me—who, I reiterate, are not protectors of those who break the law in uniform—it fatally weakens the cause.
Attitudes have changed. We cannot let history’s notoriously heavy hand be an impediment to reconciliation, peace and opportunities in Northern Ireland for the greater good. Truth about the past has an important role to play but, as I have said today and pointed out to individual Members, it is about the actual truth, not their version of the truth, and about all the uncomfortable, messy, bloody and disgraceful actions that occurred. It has to be the truth, not their version of the truth.
I wish to focus my remarks on two key groups: the families of the civilians who died and those who sought to uphold the law in the security services—I will come to the veterans in a moment. I am talking about the real people in this debate. They are not trying to get elected all the time. They are not saying ridiculous things in the Chamber like, “British soldiers went to my town to murder civilians”. They are not saying that sort of thing just to get social media clicks—[Interruption.] That is precisely what the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said. That is exactly what he said, and it was an absolute disgrace. He is a disgrace to this House. These are real people, and they are not like that. They are real people without answers, without parents, without siblings and without loved ones, some of whom are under threat from almost interminable prosecutions.
I accept that the Bill needs work. The Government must overcompensate for the failures of the past, particularly on transparency. We cannot blanket rule out people finding out what happened to their loved ones because of national security. That has been the situation for too long, and the truth has not come out. Time has passed, and we are in this situation now. We must hand this over to the main protagonists, and chief among them are the  team at Op Kenova led by Jon Boutcher. Time and again, I have said that the Government must bend over backwards to show what Boutcher is doing in that investigation, and that it should be lauded in all parts of this House. What he is doing requires really difficult skills, and it must be replicated in this commission, so that victims have confidence in what is being done.
I recognise that many Members have come out against the Bill, despite the fact that it has been in the public domain for only 48 to 72 hours, and I genuinely think that that is a mistake. This is an incredibly difficult space. We have probably a generational opportunity to get this right. Legacy is not an amateur sport. It is not about coming out and saying slogans and thinking that it will all go away—Members on the Conservative Benches have been as guilty of that as anybody else. It will not go away, and to imply otherwise is deeply misleading.
Critical to the success of this Bill is how it is handled by Ministers, and I encourage them in their endeavours. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for what he has done. When the Command Paper came out, it was clearly rejected—I was probably one of the few on these Benches to come out against it. But the Secretary of State has had the character to look at it and come back with more realistic and better proposals, and he should be commended for that.
Finally, I want to address the issue of veterans. The Good Friday agreement was an incredible piece of work, ending years of bloodshed in Northern Ireland. However, there is no doubt that the issue of veterans was left on the table, and there are some of us who will never accept that. We are not asking for favours; we are asking for fairness.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I know that he speaks passionately on behalf of many veterans, and I understand that. He spoke of the Government responding to his concerns. Does he agree that, when the Minister of State rises to respond to this debate later, what we want to hear is a willingness from the Government to consider carefully reasoned amendments to this Bill that take account of very real and genuine concerns that we have about this process?

Johnny Mercer: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman 100%. We have a job here to go down that route. It must be abundantly clear to families in particular that the powers in respect of information held by the security forces sit not with the Northern Ireland Office but with the commission, which has unfettered access to that material. Any evidence that exists must be allowed to have modern techniques applied to it, as is the case under Kenova, to ensure that the truest accounts—not a version of the truth, but the truest accounts—are given to the families. The commission must have the right to speak to anybody who is still alive and could shed light—the barman in Spain, for instance.
Finally, I do want to address the matter of veterans. This Chamber is not packed today. I tell Members now that there is no other country in the world that would treat its veterans like this. I totally get the emotion in people’s speeches—I genuinely do—but the way that this has carried on over the past 25 years is an absolute disgrace.
I promised veterans before I was in Government and when I was in Government that I would do whatever it took to help them—that I would not allow them to be left behind on the negotiating table, or to be left in that “too difficult” column, as has been the case for decades. Those decades have seen lives ruined and lives ended prematurely. The whole premise of a generation’s sacrifice in Northern Ireland has been questioned openly with almost no defence, save from a few hon. Members, some of whom are here today.
I never served in Northern Ireland and I have no relation to that wonderful part of the United Kingdom, but I know the institution that shaped me. While I know the UK’s armed forces will always have their challenging individuals, as any organisation does, and we must do better in holding them to account, the overwhelming sense is one of deep professionalism, humility, courage, integrity and self-sacrifice. Those values have been tested to destruction and beyond. I have personally seen men die in the upholding of those values.
In this journey, one of the most affecting testimonies I have heard—I realise I am going slightly over 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is important.

Nigel Evans: Not slightly; you are well over, Mr Mercer.

Johnny Mercer: Okay. I just want those soldiers’ voices to be heard at the end of this. We talked about the two-year limit and the pain that that has caused. Veterans are not stupid. We understand the need for difficult compromise. Peace must prevail and endure; that is ultimately why we sign up in the first place—to protect the peace. However, allowing veterans’ sacrifices to be used as pawns in this political settlement has to end. When I came to this place I could not believe the ease with which those sacrifices were trashed or the ease with which political leaders abandoned those veterans to their foes, who are now invited into government in Northern Ireland, with the full utility of the levers of state at their disposal. Never again must we allow them to rewrite history in their favour.
I say to veterans: the nation is deeply proud of your role in securing peace in Northern Ireland and profoundly grateful for your sacrifice. Whatever happens in the process of this Bill—I urge colleagues on both sides to work with Ministers and I urge Ministers to bend over backwards to get it through—I hope veterans begin to understand that there are some of us in this place who will do whatever it takes to get there in the end.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I remind people again that 10 minutes is the target we are looking at, otherwise I will introduce a time limit. And let us have temperate language, please, to one another throughout the debate.

Colum Eastwood: I will point out one thing at the outset. I am sitting with colleagues from Northern Ireland around me, and while we rarely agree on much—I think they will agree with that—we agree on this. We come at it from different perspectives and we will make different types of speech, but we agree that  this piece of legislation goes absolutely against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and against the interests of the victims in Northern Ireland. Nobody on these Benches is interested in social media clips or dipping in and out of an issue every couple of months. We have been doing this for a long time; we speak to every single victims group and we try our best to represent them. Some people in this House might not like that, but we will continue to do it.
I have great respect for the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but he said that there is something in this Bill for everyone. I say this with great respect, but there is nothing in this Bill for the victims and those people who have been left behind by all the perpetrators who destroyed lives and families over many years.
I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He intimated that we have all been fighting with each other and we need the British Government to come in and sort out the problem for us. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened over many years and many centuries in Northern Ireland. The British Government are no neutral observer in what happened, and they cannot be allowed to make the decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. We have already agreed how to resolve this issue: it is called the Stormont House agreement. As difficult as that is, as complicated as it has been, that is the only route that has buy-in from all the political parties and two Governments—at least, it used to have.
Before I came into this Chamber, I met for a cup of tea with a man called Michael O’Hare. His sister was called Majella, and she was 12 years old in 1976. She was walking with her friends to the chapel when she was shot twice in the back by a British Army Parachute Regiment member. Michael does not want an amnesty for anybody.
I was reminded of another case in my own constituency by the fantastic and heartfelt speech by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who talked about Patsy Gillespie. The IRA abducted Patsy Gillespie from his house, leaving his wife Kathleen and his family at home. Patsy worked in a British Army base. He was chained to a van full of explosives and forced to drive into that army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five British soldiers. The people who carried that out will be freed from any concern as a result of this legislation.
I also wonder about the Ballymurphy families. In August 1971, 11 people were killed by the British Army—by the Parachute Regiment, again. Daniel Teggart was one of the victims. His daughter is called Alice Harper. This is what she had to say recently:
“We identified my daddy by his curly hair. Fourteen times they shot him. The next day they blackened his name and called him a gunman. Two years later, my brother Bernard, with a mental age of nine, was killed by the IRA. We want no amnesty for anyone.”
The Ballymurphy families would never have seen the truth that the world got to see about what happened in Ballymurphy if these proposals had been brought in before the result of that inquest.
We hear that the new system will provide truth for people. Well, Columba McVeigh was 17, from Donaghmore, County Tyrone. He was abducted and killed by the IRA and his body was disappeared. His body has still not been found, despite the fact that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains allows for immunity in these cases. It would have allowed for the IRA to come forward and tell Columba’s family exactly where the body was buried. They have not done that—that is the point.
The idea that this legislation will bring truth to families is absolute nonsense. The pretence from this Government that the legislation is about victims or reconciliation is frankly an out and out lie. This is about politics and a manifesto commitment—about protecting the state, as it always is. It will protect every single perpetrator who committed those crimes in Northern Ireland. I cannot find anybody, apart from Government Members, who believe that this legislation is the way forward. The Queen’s University law school’s model Bill team describe it as unworkable and as breaching international law. Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland, said:
“we are sure that this Bill is substantially, in fact almost certainly fatally, flawed.”
This is an overt attempt to close down access to truth and justice for the victims of our conflict. It rips up the Stormont House agreement—an agreement that people have bought into—and it does not have the support of the parties in Northern Ireland. It has absolutely no support from victims’ groups in Northern Ireland: many have told us in the past few days that they will boycott the processes if they become law.
Others have said that there is no such thing as collusion. I cannot believe that they are still saying that today, given the number of times the police ombudsman has uncovered the fact that there has been collusion in Northern Ireland between the state and paramilitary organisations.

Johnny Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Colum Eastwood: Do you know what? I won’t.
The Bill is attempting to close down the police ombudsman’s opportunity to investigate issues of the past. I wonder why. It is also closing down access to the civil route for families. What happened last Tuesday? The Secretary of State announced that there would be no new civil cases after that day. Families who had been told that they were supposed to be at the centre of this were running around with their lawyers trying to get access to the courts before they closed that day. That is some way to treat the people who have suffered the most!
It is all right for the rest of us, who are still here and doing quite well out of the peace process. The people who have been left behind have been treated shoddily by this Government as recently as last week. People who have waited decades for an inquest and are now in the queue for one are being told that they will not have any opportunity to get the proper truth. If this is about truth, why are we afraid of inquests? I just do not understand it.
This legislation is riddled with Government overdrive and there is nothing independent about how the organisation will be constituted. There is no meaningful article 2 compliant investigation. Frankly, it is a recipe for impunity.
I have heard reference to Kenova. This Bill is not Kenova. It is nothing like Kenova. Kenova allowed proper judicial processes and proper investigation processes so that families and the rest of us could get access to the truth. South Africa, equally, it is not, and that argument has been well debunked.
The Government are telling us they want to see access to truth. Let me tell the House about two cases I know well. Paul Whitters was 15 years old in 1981. He was shot in the head by a police officer with a plastic bullet. Despite promises from this Government given to me, his file has been closed for a further number of years. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know when that file will apparently be opened? In 2084. He was 15 years old. In the same year, 1981, the British Army fired a plastic bullet that killed Julie Livingstone, 14 years old, in Lenadoon, west Belfast. Her file will not be opened until 2062.
The Government are telling us that they want truth and access to reconciliation for victims, but every single thing they have done—whether this Bill, the Ballymurphy inquest or the Bloody Sunday inquiry—has been to protect the state, to deny access to truth and to deny access to justice for those people who do not have the same ability to protect themselves. I heard we have a new shiny headquarters in Belfast for the Northern Ireland Office. Victims were standing outside it today, protesting these proposals. They were also in Derry and at Downing Street, because they believe—to a man and woman, in my experience—that these proposals are absolutely wrong. Raymond McCord is in the Public Gallery. He has had to fight against the state and loyalist paramilitaries to try and find truth and justice for his son, Raymond.
The question is, do this Government really care about Raymond and all of those victims, or do they simply care about fulfilling a manifesto commitment, protecting the state and protecting paramilitary killers, because that is exactly what this piece of legislation will do if it is passed?

Nigel Evans: Thank you very much for keeping within the unofficial, but fairly official time limit.

Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to speak in this debate because I have had a long interest in Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland in 1975. I remember the billboards at Christmas saying, “Seven years will have been too much”. To be honest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hated every moment of it. I did not ask or volunteer to go there. I did not want to be doing something that I did not think I was ever trained to do, although we did carry out training. It struck me as a real problem.
I also want to say one other word about it, because often it is bandied around that political parties over here do not really get it. The Conservative party has lost a large number of people to terrorism—in the Brighton bombings alone and in other killings. We can see their coats of arms up on the wall in the Chamber. My predecessor, Norman Tebbit, has had a lifelong period of pain. His wife was disabled. She is now dead sadly, God rest her soul, and she put up with a lot as a result  of her husband being in politics. The sadness is, as he leaves politics now, that he bore that all the way through. After the Good Friday agreement, he had to watch those who he knew had done it walk away. They walked away under the agreement that reduced everything to two years, and the pain he and his wife must have suffered was enormous—I know it was. I speak therefore with a certain amount of humility, as much as I speak about my own service.
The truth is, I want to talk about one particular person. Captain Robert Nairac was a good friend. He was passionate about going to Northern Ireland as a Catholic. I am a Catholic myself, and he thought that he could do something over there to help and that he would understand it. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) served with him as well. The truth is that Robert was captured. He was taken, he was tortured, we understand, and we think he was eventually executed after attempting to escape, but we do not know the full circumstances.
The sadness of all of us who have watched is that we want to know what happened. We want to get some closure. We have never understood what happened. Where is he buried? His parents went to their graves never knowing where he was. They could never go to that grave and say some words over it. That is the reality of where we are today and the point is that many people already suffer because of it.
The truth is that I do not love this Bill. I think that it is, in many senses, imperfect—as it will be—and it has problems and difficulties, some of which were related earlier. The question that we need to face is what we are really after. If we want justice in terms of prosecution and, if necessary, eventual incarceration, we need to deal with the reality that we no longer have that, because two years for murder most foul is not justice. It cannot be justice.
So do we want the prosecution to raise information? The problem is that many prosecutions are taking place against people about whom there are huge numbers of records because they happened to be servicemen and women. That is why those cases can be taken up—because the Government have all those records. Those who committed terrorist acts, however, where there is little information and little willingness to do anything about giving evidence—they may have fled the country—will remain a mystery. I talked about Robert Nairac, but I have no idea who committed that murder or how many were involved in his final demise.
All I can say is that if the Bill is about knowledge, the system at the moment is imperfect. If it is about punishment and prosecution, the system at the moment is imperfect. So what are we going to do? I understand that the Bill is a process and I think it is a genuine attempt by the Government to try to find a way that allows the families of victims to at least know and understand what happened.
My point is that things will have to change if we are to see any of this happen. On that, I have a small comment for the Opposition. I understand their position, but I wish that they had said “Maybe” rather than “No”, because we now engage in a process. The question is whether we can get some of those things right during that process. That is the point. There was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence  and Security Committee, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) about exactly what we want to achieve at the end of this and whether it can be made to achieve it. That comes down to a couple of issues, which I will deal with now.
First, we have a problem in the reconciliation process. To allow someone to just come in and say, “As far as I can recall, this happened and that’s my lot,” and for them to be told, “Well, that’s okay. Now you can go away and you’ll never be prosecuted for it. It’s alright. Don’t worry.” does not work for me, and I do not think it will work in the process. It must be much more interrogative and individuals must be cross-examined about exactly how far their knowledge went.
Secondly, I would like the commission to decide whether we are going to go ahead with this regardless of whether it considers that, on balance, the individual has told the truth and deserves any kind of immunity from future prosecution. In other words, that needs to be tightened up a great deal. If families of victims are to have any faith in it, they will need to understand that there was due process.

Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman touches on a good point, because the commission would consider what the individual seeking immunity says and whether it is truthful, but under the Bill it is not allowed to consider any other information. Does it not strike him as odd that it has no ability to challenge the rigour or integrity of what it is told?

Iain Duncan Smith: I understand that. As I said earlier, with all humility to my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I start from a position of trying to find a way through. That is one of the problems with the Bill. If it is about knowledge, we have to meet that requirement somehow in the Bill, because it is not happening out there. For all the talk about prosecutions and knowledge, few of those who carried out those heinous crimes have ever ended up in the courts or will ever end up in the courts, so how can we manage to make that happen?
Another part of the problem is those who do not co-operate. I worried about the two-year issue in 1998, because it seemed unfair and not really justice. If someone blows somebody else up; murders them; or takes away a family’s father, brother, sister or whoever or a member of the armed forces who was there to protect them, they should, after committing such a crime—murder most foul—face the fullest penalty.
I understand the compromise that was made at the time—I understand that. Many of us had to bite our lips, but we understood it. My point is that if we are going to open the door on the one hand to those who would entertain the possibility of coming to speak the truth, we must also say that those who do not will face the full penalty of the law for murder most foul: “You will not be given an exemption. You will not end up with only two years. You will face a full prosecution if you are not part of this process. In other words, either you co-operate, you face the interrogation and you actually come out as having told the truth, or else you go down the other road back into the justice system and you face full prosecution.” To some degree, that would at least give balance. It would at least give an idea  that somehow the process not just sought the truth, but punished those who refused to participate in that process.
I end simply on the basis that the process will never satisfy everybody. I know that, and I know that families will feel very hurt by this process so far, but I think there is a way through. The one thing that has characterised, in many senses, this House over Northern Ireland has been somehow trying to find a way through the thicket of the different positions that people take. I for one think that the process of trailing veterans—where the information is there, they had given evidence previously and they have been fact-faced at interrogations—should not go on, because it is terrible and belittling, and at the same time creates real problems for them at home. We want to find a way to settle that, but I do not want to settle it on the backs of those who still await to find out what happened.
If we can find a way through on this Bill, imperfect as it is at the moment, that would be worthy of the effort. I would encourage the Opposition to engage as much as they possibly can, because this is too important an issue to divide on in a very political sense. I want to see closure: I want to find out what happened to my friend Robert Nairac, because it troubles me every single day and I never got to say goodbye to him.

Carla Lockhart: I am very conscious that this debate is most likely being watched by victims and survivors in Northern Ireland as well as those based here on the mainland. I am conscious of how painful this is for them—the hurt and the trauma inflicted and, indeed, the sense of betrayal brought about by this Bill. I make no apology for stating that it is those innocent victims of terrorism who are front and centre in how I and my party approach dealing with the past. The past is still their present. They paid the greatest price. They did not choose to pay that price; it was inflicted on them by the bomb and the bullet, by the evil, wicked hand of terrorism. All they seek in return for the price paid is justice, and for the perpetrator to be held to account for their deathly actions. While the widow and her young family stood at the graveside mourning the loss of the innocent husband and father, they craved the moment when the terrorist stands in the dock facing justice. As time has passed, that ray of hope has grown dimmer, but remained. Today, the Government are extinguishing that hope.
As a party, we have consistently applied a number of tests to any proposal around legacy. The tests are that there remains the opportunity for justice for victims, that there is no amnesty and that any process is fair and balanced. What we have before us today in the form of this Bill fails all three tests. As far back as the Belfast agreement, the DUP opposed the reduction in tariff for terrorist-related offences to a maximum of two years. We found such leniency towards those guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable to be a perversion of justice, yet what this Bill proposes is even worse, for there is no custodial sentence whatsoever in these proposals, only a period on licence. To the on-the-runs’ letters of comfort, add the freedom pass. How utterly repugnant.
We know how the process will work. In reality, a terrorist could come forward and tell whatever tale he or she contrives. With no new evidence and on the  balance of probabilities, some will get the reward of an amnesty for their tall tale. I am yet to decide if it is naive or simply duplicitous of the Government to suggest the Bill will help to address the legacy of the past: to do that, surely truth must mean something. For Sinn Féin, “truth” means concealing as much as it can about IRA terrorism. When Martin McGuinness, an IRA godfather with the blood of many innocents dripping from his hands, appeared before the Saville inquiry, he stated that his IRA oath curtailed what he could say. He said, and the Government should take note:
“I feel I cannot answer that question because there is a Republican code of honour. For me to identify who these people are would be a betrayal, in my view. To do so would have been a gross act of betrayal. I have a duty, in my view, stretching back 30 years, to those people and I am not prepared to break my word to them under any circumstances.”
Despicable.
Let me raise one other issue in relation to our brave armed forces, who stood against those intent on death and destruction. We have seen the imbalance in resources and in the ferocity with which answers have been sought in instances involving our armed forces, compared with terrorism. It is not that long ago that I stood outside a Belfast courthouse with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and the late Dennis Hutchings, who was chased to his grave by those intent on the vexatious prosecution of soldiers. Dennis, like others, was placed in that position in rural Ulster not through choice, but in response to a situation foisted upon our land. This country and this House put our young men and women in an incredibly dangerous position and, as part of their operational duties, they had to make very difficult operational decisions, sometimes with tragic outcomes. It is appalling that they should then be subject to the full rigour of criminal investigation, as proposed by the Bill. Furthermore, it is scandalous that should a soldier tell his story and it not be completely corroborated by documentary evidence, the burden of proof for the soldier is much higher than for the terrorist whom he was sent to defeat.
It was William Gladstone who famously said:
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
However, the Bill is much worse. It is justice denied and justice destroyed.

Stuart Anderson: I am honoured to speak in the debate and I understand the sensitivities, the emotion and the hurt that many people in the Chamber feel, given their personal experiences and those of loved ones. I shall try to temper what I say in my speech as a result.
I served for 18 months at the back end of the troubles, so I am one of the youngest of those who served there. My father served in Northern Ireland in the early days of the 1970s with the SAS. I grew up in Hereford watching my dad search under cars. I would ask, “Why are you looking under the car, Dad? What have you dropped?” We grew up with that—I lived two or three roads from the SAS camp. The fathers of many of the kids I went to school with served in Northern Ireland and were family friends. The whole community felt it, and we would regularly have bomb threats near the camp.
On a lighter note, some of my friends realised that if they called in a hoax bomb threat to the school, we would be sent home for the day. After three days of hoax threats, the school said that we would have to go in at the weekend, so the bomb threats stopped—at least, the hoaxes did.
In my community, we grew up understanding all that; it was always there. We would see it on the news when I was at school throughout the early ’80s. When I left school, I joined the Army and the Royal Green Jackets, which as a regiment probably lost among the most soldiers throughout the troubles. If we put it with The Rifles and the Light Infantry, they would without a doubt have lost more than anybody else. Every single loss of life in that experience is a tragedy.
When I joined, all our instructors at the depot were Northern Ireland veterans—they could not have been instructors without having gone through that—and we knew that, within a few years of passing out from the depot, we would be going to serve in Northern Ireland. Everything was geared around that. Twelve months after getting out of the depot, getting shot and recovering, I went on Northern Ireland training. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who did not look to enjoy it, I could not wait to go to Northern Ireland. I was looking forward to it and could not wait to serve my country over there.
I had had extensive training; I knew right from wrong; I knew my rules of engagement. I knew, in no uncertain terms, what I could and could not do. I and all my colleagues were tested to breaking point on the ranges in scenarios over and over again for several months. We took the experience from those who had served many times before. I know that quite a few hon. Members served over there. During the process, we were shown what had happened to some of our colleagues who sadly never returned. We saw, in graphic detail, the loss of life from car bombs and murders. We saw videos. We knew that, if it was to go wrong for us, it would really go wrong. We knew what that was like.
When I was deployed, I remember getting to Belfast—we were in big, armoured trucks—and, as I looked out of a gap, I could see what looked like my home area. I saw streets, not a war zone as I had thought. It looked like a normal area. I am not afraid to admit that I was afraid. I was nervous and did not know what to expect. I was a teenager on an operational tour. Most of my colleagues had not been there before—I think that only the corporals and above had—so we were very wary.
Initially, there was a ceasefire, but the Canary Wharf bomb going off at the beginning of 1996 changed what was happening. I was in Drumcree in the summer of 1996 when we stopped the marching, and the whole Province erupted. Several RUC, who were always outstanding in operating with us, were shot. I think that four were shot in one night. There were multiple attacks, with people getting burned out of houses. We were in riot, and we were being full-on attacked left, right and centre. That went on for a long time. After about three or four days, we realised that we had not slept. We were tired. We were exhausted. We were getting bricked and people were getting shot at and petrol-bombed. That was going on and on, but we knew what we could and could not do.
We must weigh up how, in that scenario, every one of us had a split second to decide whether the person running round the corner with something in his hand was running away from someone trying to attack him or running towards us to attack us. At that very moment, we held life and death in our hands. If we took action, we took a life. If we did not take action, we died or our colleagues died. We were in that scenario.
I believe that, through all of my operational tours, people acted in the most professional manner. There have been mistakes that have happened, and there has been wrongdoing by people in unform. That is a stain on what the British Army represents. Those incidents are few and far between, but mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. Things do go wrong. I am 46 years of age, and I sometimes struggle to remember what I did last week, let alone 25 years ago—

Iain Duncan Smith: You’re a young man.

Stuart Anderson: I know—my right hon. Friend served the year before I was born—but many people would not remember exactly what happened then. Everyone in my patrol would describe those incidents in a different way. Dragging soldiers through the courts for what has happened is a stain on what we had.
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was put in place in 1998. I can see why it has taken until now to get to where we are, because there is a lot of talk and there are a lot of reasons—people always have a reason for why something cannot be done—so I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for getting us here. We have heard that there will not be unanimous support for the Bill. We see that. I look to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that Democratic Unionist party Members do not agree with the Bill and do not support it, but want to make some reasonable changes as it goes through. I understand that this has a different impact on them and their communities. Many of us will be touched by these issues, but DUP Members still live in those communities. It will be decades before there is change. No Bill will change the impact of the lives that were lost or the impact on people who went and served over there. People are never the same afterwards.
I would like to think that I am quite a reasonable person and I tend to measure what I say, but those on the Labour Front Bench have put up one Back-Bench Member to debate the Bill, and I find that an absolute dishonour to this House. I find it an insult.

James Sunderland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is the party of the armed forces?

Stuart Anderson: No, I certainly do not. As I said, I am trying to temper my remarks, but Labour is going to vote against the Bill for political reasons. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) turns around to look. There is not one Labour Member there. [Interruption.] There have been a couple, I will give him that, but they could at least put forward an argument for why they are not supporting the Bill, and not just from the Front Bench. Labour Members will be voting against the Bill without having put forward a reasonable  argument and that is completely unacceptable. Words have happened too much in this House; we need to see action now.

Mike Penning: I think my hon. Friend is making the point on his own, but I extend the hand of friendship and emphasise that this is Second Reading. It is plainly obvious that amendments will be tabled in Committee and on Report—we have heard that from across the House—and surely on Second Reading the Opposition could support the Bill and then change it in debate in Committee. It will fundamentally change. There has been no debate from Labour Back Benchers really. This is Second Reading, and we should extend the hand of friendship across the House and agree that we can make amendments later on, but to vote against the Bill now is a slight not only against the victims, but against the veterans who served.

Stuart Anderson: As I wind up, I want to make clear that this is not a personal attack on the hon. Member for Hove. He is here, but nobody else from his party is here and that is not acceptable. They could at least have come and put forward a reasoned argument for why they are not supporting the Bill. I will leave that there. I will be supporting the Bill because it is the right thing to do moving forward.

Stephen Farry: At the outset, may I put on record that I think we can all be here in support of UK armed forces but have a different opinion on what is the right thing to do in terms of the legislation? I stand here as someone who wants to restate my support for the work that the armed forces have done in Northern Ireland in the past, where they served with great honour, distinction, integrity and sacrifice, and for the work they are doing in places right around the world at present. All of us are very clearly aware of the huge threats that exist in the international space at present. I want to pass on my thanks and appreciation personally to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and his colleagues for their service.
Our difficulty is that this debate is based around a false narrative of vexatious investigations and prosecutions that simply does not stack up under scrutiny. As a consequence, we are seeing the production of bad law—indeed, law that will prove to be utterly unworkable in the situation of Northern Ireland. Legacy is by far the most sensitive issue in our political space. There is a real prospect that what is happening with this Bill, including the manner in which it has been handled, will end up retraumatising victims, because no preparation has been done for what is coming down the tracks. People are seeing the potential prospect—slim though that may be—of justice being snuffed out over their heads. That cuts really deep, to their very sense of being and the slim hope that they have been holding on to.
Of course, the legacy process in Northern Ireland is fragmented and piecemeal. Outcomes are poor, in terms of justice and reconciliation. There have been some notable exceptions where results have been delivered, not least in some of the recent inquests. However, we have the legacy investigations branch of the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, inquests and civil cases, so the need for a comprehensive approach to  legacy is clear. The Bill does not represent that solution. It is unworkable and incompatible with the principles of justice, the rule of law and reconciliation, and it is not compatible with international human rights standards either.
The Stormont House agreement of 2014 represented an agreement between the UK and Irish Governments and most of the Northern Ireland parties. It also has the support of most victims’ groups and other stakeholders, but it has never been implemented. It was never even given a chance. When people ask us, “What is the alternative?”, the answer is clearly “Stormont House—return to it and give it a chance before you move on to something else.”
The Bill is not even consistent with the principles of the Stormont House agreement. Furthermore, it is even a breach of the New Decade, New Approach agreement from as recently as January 2020 under the current Prime Minister. That agreement recommitted the Government to Stormont House—not to a different process. It is there in black and white.
The Bill is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. There is already very significant case law on requirements around the nature of investigations. The processes set out in the Bill do not, and cannot, provide the necessary independence, effectiveness or rigour, in terms of the interrogation of evidence, to be compliant with article 2. We have had an interesting debate about how that can potentially be addressed. We would have to recognise that a whole range of references to “review” in the Bill need to be stripped out and replaced with “investigation.” We are talking about surgery in which, essentially, we would have to select all and replace all, with “review” coming out for “investigation”.
I want to reiterate the following point: although we have to keep on the table the prospect of prosecutions happening in what may well be a small minority of cases—people will cling on to that hope—the important point about investigations relates to the rigour of the investigation, the interrogation of evidence and the challenge that actually provides answers for people. That is what they have been looking for, and that is the type of process that has reached results in limited cases so far. That is what an inquest does, for example. However, on paper in this Bill, we do not have that interrogative approach—it is very far away from that. Indeed, given the Bill’s failure to uphold the European convention on human rights, we could argue that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.
The Operation Kenova model negates the Government’s argument that investigations with full investigatory powers are not viable. Although there have not been any prosecutions, my understanding is that substantial files have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service in relation to that. Again, what is in the Bill is nothing close to what was included in Operation Kenova.
The process around the Bill has been flawed. It is a top-down imposition that does not reflect co-design with the key stakeholders. Indeed, there was no meaningful engagement with Northern Ireland political parties or other stakeholders on the Bill. That includes the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
The Bill is driven by a narrative from the Government, and the Conservative party more widely, based on vexatious claims and investigations against veterans. That does  not stack up. Ministers cannot, and will not, cite examples of what they mean by “vexatious”; they have had plenty of opportunity to do so but they have never taken that up. Indeed, the Northern Ireland criminal justice system is rigorous. It has a high bar for what is pursued through the courts and it self-polices any vexatious cases. Anyone who claims that there are vexatious claims in the system is attacking and undermining the existing criminal justice system.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Bill is opposed by virtually every victims’ group in Northern Ireland, which raises the question: on whose behalf is it being passed? The groups opposing the Bill include Amnesty International, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Relatives for Justice, South East Fermanagh Foundation, the Pat Finucane Centre, WAVE and the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says that
“this Bill is substantially, in fact almost certainly fatally, flawed.”
The Irish Government are supposed to be a partner in the process and in managing the Good Friday agreement, but have not been part of this phase of the legacy deliberations. They, too, see the Bill as unworkable and as incompatible with article 2 of the convention.
Furthermore, much of the Bill relates to matters that are essentially in the devolved space of Northern Ireland. The original understanding behind Stormont House was that the UK Parliament would pass legislation covering both UK responsibilities and Northern Ireland responsibilities on a hybrid basis, with the active consent of the Assembly; that was the only tactical way of getting the comprehensive package through. As things stand, however, the Government are openly working outside the Sewel convention on this most sensitive area.
Contrary to the dominant narrative that veterans support the Bill, it is important that we recognise that views are at least mixed, particularly among former Army and police personnel based in Northern Ireland. The vast majority believe in the primacy of the rule of law; they believe that the very small minority of their colleagues who have potentially broken the law should be held accountable. The Bill risks drawing a false equivalence between them and the terrorists, with special measures having to be put in place when there is no need for any protection to be given that sullies anyone’s service. For someone who may have invested 30 or 40 years of their life in protecting the community, that twisting of the narrative behind the nature of their service will cut very deep.
The Bill will grant the Secretary of State direct control over the establishment and operation of all the proposed mechanisms, undermining the independence of actors. That is particularly problematic when the state is one of those actors. The powers to compel testimony are weak, suggesting that there will not be the capacity to conduct effective investigations. The functions are weighted towards reviews rather than investigations, the bar for re-examining previous investigations is high, and the conditional immunity approach amounts to a de facto amnesty.
A false equivalence has been drawn with what happened with the early release of prisoners, with decommissioning and with victims’ remains. I was deeply uncomfortable with the early release of prisoners, which was a part of the agreement that I did not find particularly tasteful, but it is important to recognise that anyone subject to  early release was out on licence and could be recalled in the event of another offence. With victims’ remains and decommissioning, there was immunity only where evidence led to the discovery of remains or the handover of guns; there was no broad immunity for the people responsible. It is important to set out that context.
In the rare cases where immunity is not granted—I stress that it is a very subjective process—there is still only a technical risk of prosecution, because who else will do the investigation? All other routes are being shut down. There is a very real danger that people will simply choose to wait out the conclusion of the new body’s work, so there will be a blanket amnesty by default.
Amnesties are increasingly regarded as problematic in post-conflict situations around the world, so the Government are going against the trend. Amnesties are particularly problematic in the context of the ECHR framework; the Marguš v. Croatia case is especially relevant in that regard. The lessons are very clear: for any amnesty to be even remotely tenable, it would need either to be part of the peace agreement itself or to be agreed across the political parties. Neither of those tests has been met.
I am conscious that I am running out of time, but I make a couple more comments in conclusion. There are major concerns about shutting down civil cases and inquests, particularly as the last Lord Chief Justice and the present Lady Chief Justice have been working through a programme in which different inquests have been scheduled in a different order, so there is a risk that inquests will be completed for certain families but snuffed out for others.
The proposals relating to oral history, memorials and academic research are also centrally controlled, and are being used to give a reconciliation veneer to what is actually being done. Reconciliation is at the heart of the DNA of my party, but it cannot be done from the top down: people cannot be told to reconcile. It has to be done in an organic way, but that is not going to happen.
Let me make a final comment about process. I believe that the Bill is irredeemable and fatally flawed, which is why I will be opposing it. However, even if the Government offer to amend it, a Committee of the whole House over two days will not give us enough space for proper consideration of any amendments. That belies any genuine attempt to fix any of the problems.

James Sunderland: Thank you for calling me for the graveyard shift, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There has been plenty of passion and emotion in this important debate, but I want to give my view, as a relatively new Member and, I hope, a pragmatist. Today is about the past, the present and the future, and it is about people, many of whom were terribly caught up in the troubles. It is already clear that the Bill will not be a panacea—far from it—but it does have defined outcomes that I believe to be broadly positive, for reasons that I shall explain. No one will pretend that this is at all easy, or that it is a formality.
Let me begin by commending the Secretary of State and his staff in the Northern Ireland Office for acting in good faith throughout. This process is very difficult legally,  and very sensitive politically. It has required strategic patience and huge personal and professional resilience under pressure. Ultimately the Bill is a no-win statute, because it will not bring people back, and it will not bring solace to victims and their families, in that those whom we should be holding to account may now never be brought to justice. However, I believe that it will ultimately provide some solace and some closure, although not a lot. Despite all its imperfections, I believe that it will do what it says on the tin, as the least worst option.
This legislation has done the rounds. It has been through the Irish Government, veterans groups and victims groups, and it is probably the missing chapter of the Good Friday agreement of 24 years ago. It therefore comes as no surprise to anyone. It has, I believe, received due diligence. It has taken longer than expected, and yes, the Northern Ireland Office has received criticism—not least from Conservative Members—for the strategic pause that has been necessary, but it was a manifesto promise, it was in the Queen’s Speech, and it is finally being delivered. It is now deliverable as well, but it is also a heavy responsibility for the Government.
What I want to say about the Bill relates first to veterans, veterans groups and those who may still be serving. Do I think that the Bill is the right way to protect veterans from vexatious complaints? The simple answer is yes. Why? Because it breaks the cycle. It ends the misery, and it ends the knocks on the door at 3 o’clock in the morning. We owe it to these people, who served in good faith in Northern Ireland. I commend the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and the work of so many veterans groups. This has gone on for too long, and it needs to be killed now.
Of course, it is not possible to deliver legacy protection for veterans in isolation. It has to be able to withstand legal challenge. It has to be article 2 compliant. It has to get through Strasbourg and comply with the Human Rights Act. The principle of legal equivalence underpins that statute because it has to, and therefore the premise of conditional amnesty is rightly pivotal. It was right to move away from the original premise of what might be termed “new and compelling evidence”. Who decides that, and how does one draw the line in law? It is impossible: the bottom line is that one cannot. I therefore understand the logic of why a blanket statute of limitations has been introduced, and I think that is now the right thing to do.
What does the Bill actually do? We know that it establishes the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. In theory, it creates an environment of openness, which may give answers and some closure, but I appreciate the flaws in the argument. It will grant immunity from prosecution to those who engage with the commission. The important point is that legal equivalence does not mean moral equivalence, so it is absolutely right that conditional amnesty is dependent on engagement. The Bill will end troubles-based criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings, which is the right thing to do, and it should mean the commissioning of a record of every troubles-related death from the ICRIR. The list goes on.
However, in the interests of balance, I should point out that the PSNI currently has a caseload of at least 900 unsolved cases. Op Kenova, which was mentioned  earlier, has unfinished business for many, and victims and families will not get the resolution they seek. I am also acutely conscious of the concerns of those who believe that protagonists just will not engage. In my view, we have to give this a chance. It is important that we do that.
The Bill is divisive, as we have heard today, and we have to go forward as carefully as we can, mindful of the particular sensitivity of victims’ families. That is a given. But the time is now 24 years on from the Good Friday agreement, and we have no choice. We have to deliver on the promise that was made, not least to our veterans. Personally, I am bewildered and disappointed by Labour’s decision not to be in the Chamber today and to vote against the Bill. In addition to doing the right thing for our security services and our veterans, the Bill is ultimately about national politics, not party politics, and I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will do the right thing this afternoon.

Stuart Anderson: I certainly laboured that point, but it is a point that really needs labouring. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour is not the party of veterans, and that its action tonight will be seen across the veteran community?

James Sunderland: My personal view is that we have to show the requisite support to our veterans, our armed forces and our security services. Today is ultimately about two things. It is about drawing a line under vexatious complaints and about hoping that Northern Ireland can emerge into a peaceful and prosperous future. I very much hope that that happens.

Ian Paisley Jnr: We have heard a number of helpful and interesting contributions on what is a difficult subject. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an important and interesting point when he identified that there should be significant amendments to the Bill. Those amendments, if carried in the way he suggested, would change what the Bill does, and we look forward to them in hope and in expectation, because change to this Bill is necessary. Many Members representing all types of constituencies in Northern Ireland and all parties across this House have rightly stated that they are opposed to it. It has failed the Northern Ireland test of getting any sense of consensus whatsoever, and it is important that that is placed on record.
It is disappointing that Labour Members have not contributed to this debate in the way that we would have expected them to do, given that it was in 1998 that the genie was let out of the bottle when all terrorist prisoners were released from jail. That set on course a series of events that has told us that justice in Northern Ireland will be served up very differently for everyone. It is important that people recognise that, since 1998, we have been served a catalogue of abuse to the justice process. Let us consider the letters of comfort that were secretly issued, and the on-the-runs processes, which were a total disgrace.
These events have even been characterised in the recent series “Derry Girls”. I watched with interest the other evening as two characters fell out with each other over the release of prisoners. They came from the same  tradition and similar families but they fell out because, as one of them said, “Your brother committed murder and he shouldn’t be let out.” That is how it affected all families in Northern Ireland—Protestant and Catholic, across the divide. It was appalling. Even the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who supported the Belfast Agreement, has indicated today how that jarred with him. It is important that hon. Members recognise that the genie being let out of the bottle then is how we got here today with this legislation, which says, “If we can do it once, we can do it again. We can undermine the rule of law again, because we did it once.” Perhaps that is why the Labour Benches are empty today—because it is unsatisfactory for Labour Members to stand on their moral high horse and read a lecture about the morality or immorality of this. Maybe the finger is pointing back at them and what they did in 1998 has finally come home to roost. That is an important point.
I mentioned earlier the case of Rita O’Hare, who tried to kill a soldier called Frazer Paton in Belfast 51 years ago. She evaded justice when she was given bail. She fled to the Irish Republic and went on the run. She got a job in the United States of America, where she has been Sinn Féin’s director of publicity since the 1980s. She cannot come back to Northern Ireland because of an outstanding warrant, but under this Bill she gets off the hook. What is she going to do—read a little story to an inquiry tribunal and tell it what actually happened? She will never serve a day in jail for attempted murder, she will never serve a day in jail for possessing the murder weapon and she will never serve a day in jail for maliciously wounding a soldier, all because of this piece of legislation. We need to call it out for those reasons.
On Sunday I had the privilege of standing in Ballymena Memorial Park as we unveiled a memorial to the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. As we stood and listened to the names of the fallen from County Antrim, as tears fell on widows’ cheeks and as orphans and colleagues of the fallen stood around the memorial, it was obvious that this legislation is not a cri de coeur that no one will be left behind, as some hon. Members would have us believe. The RUC will be left behind and the victims will be left behind.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) rightly said that not a single victims group, not a single party—for different reasons—and not a single rights group in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, accepts that the Bill is compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Some hon. Members go to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on behalf of the House to uphold the European convention on human rights, and we chide Russia for breaking it, yet we are putting legislation through the House that contravenes the convention because it is not article 2 compliant.
It is perverse when we hear hon. Members calling in this House for war crimes to be identified and for people to be brought to justice in another part of Europe, because there is an attempt to conceal and forget war crimes here in the United Kingdom. Veterans have been fed an unfair diet this afternoon with the idea that the Bill will be very good for them, but it will not be. They are getting a crumb off the table, and that crumb is blue-moulded and will not taste very good because, instead of veterans being able to hold their head high and walk tall and proud for the great service they gave to our nation in  Northern Ireland, this legislation marks them out as getting some sort of dodgy special deal, like 1998 all over again. It does not do them the justice to which they are entitled, and it does not exonerate them in the way they should be.
For many years, hon. Members on both sides of the House campaigned for justice for the victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland. The next time I hear an hon. Member say they want to see justice for victims across the United Kingdom who suffered due to Libyan-sponsored explosives in the hands of the IRA, I will take a double look, because this Bill stops that in its tracks.
My constituent Billy O’Flaherty, a police officer, lost his limbs in Ballymena because of a Libyan-sponsored bomb in the hands of the IRA. I have to go and tell him tonight that, as a result of this Bill, he is never going to get justice. He is never going to see the people who tried to murder him and who murdered his colleague on the same day put behind bars. The Bill will not get us to a point of justice.
If anyone in this House honestly thinks that somehow terrorists are going to walk into a review process and ‘fess up to all the bad things they did and that it will all be forgotten, they are absolutely wrong. This is not about reconciliation. It was wrong to call this reconciliation because it will not reconcile the differences; it will drive a stake between people and leave communities—not a community—in Northern Ireland feeling let down once again.

Scott Benton: I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for introducing the Bill. Governments and Secretaries of State of all colours in the past 20-plus years have grappled with the incredibly difficult question of how to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles. This has been fraught with political, legal and moral hurdles, many of which have often been considered insurmountable. So my right hon. Friend deserves immense credit for grasping the nettle and introducing the proposals when previous Governments have all concluded that the easiest thing to do was simply to do nothing. There has long been broad agreement across Northern Ireland that the current system for addressing the legacy of the troubles simply does not work. Victims, survivors and their families have waited far too long for answers and, in order to allow Northern Ireland and its people to look towards the future, the Government are right in bringing forward this Bill.
The years of the troubles were an awful period in the history of our United Kingdom, with tragic loss of life and severe injuries inflicted on thousands of people, but it should always be remembered at this point that 90% of the deaths in the troubles were deliberate killings by terrorists who set out to inflict untold misery in pursuit of their perverse political agenda. Being in my early 30s, I am of course not old enough to remember the worst of the troubles, but I do recall the signing of the Belfast agreement. The agreement has stood the test of time and laid the foundations for peace and security in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years. However, it  came at a tremendous cost. In 1998 the prison gates were opened and terrorists guilty of horrific crimes were released without fully serving their sentences.
One can only imagine the tremendous anger, distress and upset that this must have caused, not just to the victims and their families but to those communities who were devastated by the barbaric actions of terrorist groups such as the IRA. This, alongside the on-the-run letters, was a complete corruption of justice. Some Members of the House opposed the Belfast agreement at the time, for this reason and many others, and it is easy to see why. However, we cannot look backwards; we must try to deal with the present and move Northern Ireland forward to protect the peace process and create prosperity, and we must do so while seeking to provide some form of closure to victims and families who are understandably still hurting.
Victims of wrongdoing should always have access to justice for the atrocities committed during the troubles, but the harsh reality is that these crimes occurred many decades ago and the likelihood of successful prosecutions diminishes with every passing day, as we have seen with the recent collapse of several trials. It is obvious that the current system is failing. It delivers neither truth nor justice for the vast majority of families. The emphasis that the Bill places on information recovery will help many families who have waited far too long for answers and may help to bring about some closure for the events of the past. The process will allow us to see more information than ever before on the circumstances of many crimes that resulted in horrific injuries and families losing loved ones.
The process will also provide certainty to those veterans who have for far too long faced the threat of reinvestigation, which has, in a number of cases, destroyed the final decades of their lives and inflicted great anguish and pain on their lives and those of their loved ones. It is absolutely appalling that veterans have been subjected to suspicion and have had to live their lives in fear of prosecution for so many years. By ending the cycle of vexatious criminal investigations and protracted legal proceedings, we will finally deliver on our manifesto commitment to protect veterans. That will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in Blackpool.
I am pleased that the Government have listened to concerns about automatic access to immunity and that it will now be granted on the basis of an individual’s co-operation with the commission’s inquiries and acknowledgement of their role in troubles-related incidents. The Bill will give veterans the certainty and finality that they deserve but, of course, leaves the door open to the prosecution of those who do not co-operate or share information with the commission.
I welcome the proposal to include an oral history initiative, which would create opportunities for people to share their experiences of and perspectives on the troubles. Such an initiative needs to be handled with the utmost care and sensitivity. There can never, under any circumstances, be a moral equivalence between those who perpetrated violence and those who tried to bring it to an end. An oral history archive must never be used to rewrite history from the perspective of those republicans who inflicted so much misery on their innocent victims and on the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. We must never agree to a version of history that seeks to legitimise the indiscriminate and barbaric actions of terrorists such as the IRA.

Simon Hoare: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as important as such an initiative is, we must make sure that it is not twisted by either side to become a recruiting sergeant for future years?

Scott Benton: I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It of course needs to be fair, balanced and proportionate and give an accurate account of events. It is important that it is not whitewashed by either community.
It is extremely disappointing that the Labour party will oppose this legislation this evening. The fact that I can see just one Labour Member in their place on the Opposition Benches—

Simon Hoare: There are two.

Scott Benton: I beg the House’s pardon—there are two. But that says it all. In opposing this legislation, the Labour party will allow the continued harassment of our brave servicemen, seeing them dragged through the courts with unsubstantiated claims, causing pain and misery for their families. I suspect that the reason why very few Labour Members are in their place is that they see straight through the ridiculous reason given by Opposition Front Benchers for opposing Second Reading: a tenuous argument about their objection to the so-called conditional amnesty. I am afraid it was the Labour Government who opened the floodgates to release dozens of terrorists two decades ago.
I am pleased to support the Bill and wish to go on the record again as thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for their brilliant work and for having the guts to bring this Bill to the House.

Gregory Campbell: I rise, like many of my colleagues did, to explain my opposition to the Bill as it currently stands. As has been explained by several of them, the issue here is about justice and truth. This year, 2022, is the 50th anniversary of the worst year of the troubles in Northern Ireland. In 1972, almost 500 people died as a result of the troubles, as we euphemistically call the period.
Just before Christmas last year, I went to an innocent victims’ group and asked them to organise an event that would commemorate that 50th anniversary, and they gladly did so. I and some of my colleagues attended the event in St Columb’s cathedral in Londonderry just a couple of months ago. The reason that I did that, and many of the other things that have occurred, is that there has been a tendency throughout the troubles and since their ending—hopefully for good—to equate perpetrators with victims. Unfortunately, we can trace that back to what happened after 1994.
Very often in this House and outside, people talk about peace dropping slowly in 1998. In fact, what happened was that, in 1994, the main perpetrators, but by no means the only perpetrators, were the Provisional IRA. Riddled with informers, it decided to call a halt to activities, and the loyalist paramilitaries, who were also engaged in killing, followed suit.
There were then discussions and negotiations for a period of years, resulting in the Belfast agreement, which at that stage legitimised terror—I am glad that some Members have conceded that point. It brought terror  into the heart of our political democracy. That is what happened in 1998. People might resile from that and may not like that being said, but that is what happened. We cannot turn the clock back; we are where we are now. I sympathise totally with the Government, as they are in a very difficult position, having to deal with the issue of legacy in a way that will bring comfort, succour and support to those on all sides. That will be almost impossible. Whatever they do, the job will be almost impossible.

Bob Stewart: I thank my good and hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that, in 1994, the Provisional IRA was substantially defeated and that the reason why 1998 occurred is that the Provisional IRA realised that all was lost militarily?

Gregory Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend and colleague and say that there is a substantial degree of accuracy in his observation. We have seen the outworking of that over the past five or six years.
Let me come back to those on the Front Bench. They are in an invidious position. Many people in Northern Ireland accept the difficulties that the Government are faced with. I do not meet many innocent victims who realistically hold out the prospect for a successful prosecution and limited jail term for the people who carried out the atrocities against their loved ones. I meet very, very few who say that. Most of them say that there is a limited possibility—a minuscule possibility—that they will receive justice. But what they do say is, “Don’t extinguish it. Don’t put it out for ever and a day.” And that is what this Bill does—extinguishes that possibility for ever and a day. Justice is gone—finished—and never coming back.
That is why the Government must listen to reasoned amendments to make this Bill less unacceptable than it currently is, because I do not think that there will be an acceptable Bill that will command support across the victims’ divide, and across the political divide. None the less, we could, if the Government were open to reasoned amendments, retain the possibility of justice if new evidence emerges—if it does emerge. Victims want to know that their loved one did not die in vain.

Simon Hoare: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that the timetable envisaged in the programme motion is woefully inadequate to have a proper debate on those reasoned amendments and to try to address the concerns that he and his colleagues have raised in this debate?

Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for that observation. We are in danger of agreeing too much today, but I do agree with what he has just said. Maybe the proposed Bill has done some good.
In all seriousness, however, the Secretary of State made the comment, which I see is now headlining on BBC News, that there is a diminishing possibility of prosecutions. We understand that, but a diminishing possibility is not the same as extinguishing the possibility. That is the difference we must maintain.
I agree and believe that truth recovery can contribute towards people’s moving on and accepting that what is done is done. While they would like to see justice, and still hold out the hope that they might, if they got more  information and knowledge about what happened to their loved ones, it would at least bring them some comfort.
A number of people have alluded to the case of a person I knew very slightly, the late Patsy Gillespie. He was what was called a human bomb, strapped into his own van and instructed to drive into an Army camp in Londonderry. The van was exploded, with him and five innocent soldiers also paying the price for the depravity organised by the late Martin McGuinness, who was the second-in-command of the Provisional IRA at the time.
I have an affinity with Patsy Gillespie, because he was an MOD employee on one side of the river, and I was an MOD employee on the other side. Likewise, I have an affinity with two of the three former Members whose plaques are above the door of this Chamber. They died as the result of under-car booby-traps. My family—my wife and two young children, one of them only four months old—were victims of an under-car booby-trap device; thanks to almighty God, it fell off before exploding and killing a man, a woman and two innocent children.
Let us do work with this Bill and try to improve it considerably. As it currently stands, it is totally and utterly unacceptable.

Jerome Mayhew: For far too long, for my life and beyond, Northern Ireland, the Republic and Great Britain have been scarred by the legacy of violence. History has been politicised and the truth has too often remained hidden.
The damage is not historical. It continues. For families desperate to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones, the current adversarial litigation system is an abject failure. We need only look at the success rates: despite decades of information gathering and hundreds of millions of pounds spent in legal aid, it has been overwhelmingly unsuccessful in bringing prosecutions and even less successful in securing convictions.
We have talked a lot this evening about justice—the hope of justice, access to justice, the rule of law—but justice is only a word unless it brings results. With the passage of time and the complexities of Northern Ireland, I am afraid that justice has become just that—a word. The only winners are the lawyers.
The system is failing communities, who are unable to have their experiences of the troubles properly heard and recorded. Feelings of isolation, disempowerment and conflict persist. And yes, the system is failing veterans, who, despite the near-universal failure of litigation, continue to live under its threatening shadow into their 70s and 80s. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that the process of litigation, not the result, has now become the punishment.
All those people have been and continue to be failed by the current system, so for my part I welcome the Government’s proposals to end adversarial legal proceedings as the route to truth finding. An independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery does have the potential to be more effective and will rightly focus on all deaths and serious injuries, not just those brought  into the litigation process—too often as a mechanism for extending division rather than achieving resolution and reconciliation. We need to remember in this House that of the 3,500 people who have been killed in the troubles, 370 were killed by members of the security services. Overwhelmingly, it is the evidence of former terrorists—republican and Unionist—that the families and others so desperately need to hear.
For reconciliation to take place, the truth must be supplied by every actor in this tragedy. The UK Government will provide a statutory requirement for state bodies to provide full disclosure to the commission, and I welcome that, but that transparency and openness need to be the approach of all actors, not just of the United Kingdom Government.
Linking engagement and co-operation with the commission to the possibility of immunity from prosecution could create an important incentive to unlock some of the shameful untold stories of the troubles, each one of which has the potential to provide answers to a grieving family. However, I also recognise the suggestion, in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that there may be an opportunity to improve the Bill by making full prosecution the alternative to not co-operating. We should properly explore that as we seek to improve the Bill.
The same approach must also be adopted by the Irish Government. Last year they made a commitment to establishing their own information recovery scheme, but what has happened to that? Families deserve to know the truth about what happened south of the border just as much as north of it. Imperfect as the Bill may be, I still welcome it. I hope that the initial positioning in response to its publication quickly gives way to collaborative working towards a shared vision that inspires it. My greatest concern relates to the consultation process prior to the Bill’s publication. I hope that the ministerial team will engage fully with Members in this House across the divide and take on board their feedback during the legislative process.
As we have heard time and again today, the status quo is broken. I commend the Government for grasping this nettle. I hope that we work collectively to improve this Bill in Committee.

Claire Hanna: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I thought the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was going to get in ahead of me there. I would have been pleased if she had, by the way, but today it will be the other way around.
First, I declare an interest as a former member, for three years, of the Ulster Defence Regiment and of the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years—14 and a half years in total. I believe that this Bill is very important. I have a number of issues with its details, such as the fact that clause 37 appears to allow cases already in the pipeline, such as current cases against soldiers and others, to continue. That defeats the supposed purpose of the Bill. It means that any investigations being undertaken  need only the Public Prosecution Service to signal an intent to charge and they will be exempt. I am anxious to understand how that would stop a repeat of what happened with Soldier F through a case that could already be in the system.
I have issues with the detail, such as the fact that general and specific immunity are not explained fully and would appear to lend themselves to other uses. I have problems with other details of the Bill; my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), as we have come to expect, queried and posed the questions with a greater ability than mine.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is not here, referred to his friend Robert Nairac, who died; the right hon. Gentleman served with him and that has been on his heart.

Mike Penning: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said earlier, we think that Captain Nairac died on 15 May. We do not know. There are people who know where his remains are; when I was a Northern Ireland Office Minister, people north and south of the border told me that they knew. Perhaps we might find the truth for my captain of C company, 1st Battalion the Grenadiers.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman clearly outlines that he was a friend of Captain Robert Nairac, and we all understand that; the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was too.

Mike Penning: I do not want the House to be misled. I was a guardsman; Captain Nairac was a captain, and in the Guards you know your position in life. However, I did spar with him in the gym a few times and gave him a couple of good digs.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman and Captain Nairac served together, and that is the important thing to put on the record.
I want to put something from a different point of view and to speak about the victims. In the middle of all this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to it—it is important to focus on that. I do not want to speak as Jim Shannon the Member of Parliament for Strangford; I want to speak as the cousin of Kenneth Smyth.

Gavin Robinson: It is important for the House to recognise that sometimes politicians talk about how powerfully these things affect us, but it is fair to say that from my hon. Friend’s contributions throughout the years he has brought a great deal of personal empathy and emotion to these issues. I make that intervention, and I will talk perhaps longer than you would normally permit in an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will look for a nod from my hon. Friend whenever the time is appropriate—

Rosie Winterton: Order. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would like me to come back to him after the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), I am happy to do that if at any point that is what he feels.

Jim Shannon: Thank you. My brother William and I used to go down to my cousin Kenneth’s back in the ’60s. My cousin Kenneth was the one who took us shooting. We were introduced to country sports at a very early age, and it is something that I love today. I have introduced my son and my grandchild to it, as well. It is something that he instilled in us. They were different days in the ’60s than they are today and they were in the troubles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East for intervening—I should have said that right away. I remember those days with a real fondness.
Kenneth Smyth and his Roman Catholic friend Daniel McCormick were murdered on 10 December 1971, some 50 and a half years ago. I remember that day like it was yesterday, and probably always will. I know it affected all our family up in Clady and Strabane, where we lived. Clady is a wee village outside Strabane. We have absolutely no doubt that the people who were involved in the murder of Kenneth and Daniel McCormick came from or were associated with that village. I could name the names, but I am not going to do so here. I do not think that it is important to do so, but I do feel that hurt.
Daniel McCormick left a wife and three young children. She got £3,500 from the Northern Ireland Office as compensation for the loss of her husband and the father to her children. How does that give us justice? It does not give me justice, and I do not think it gives anyone in this House justice. What I see unfortunately is legislation that does not take into consideration my position as a victim or that of Daniel McCormick’s wife and family.
The family dispersed almost immediately within months. My cousin Joseph went to America, where he has been all his life, with Mariam his wife and the children they have had. My aunt Isobel sold the farm. My grandmother grieved, as did my grandfather. My grandfather died of a broken heart. That is the story of the victims, whom we do not hear much about—but we should, because that is what is really important and that is what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about the four from the Ulster Defence Regiment killed in Ballyduggan. I speak as a man who loved a chat with John Birch, who was born in Ballywalter and was one of the Ballyduggan Four. I was not there, but I was aware and was around at the time he was born. I remember Steven Smart from Newtownards very well. His dad Sammy and I were best mates and good friends. There was also Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher’s shop while I had the business and I knew him from there. He always knew that he was going to be a soldier and he joined the Territorials, which I was in at that time. I remember that well. Again, I had to fight back the tears when I learned that a 1,000-lb bomb at Ballydugan took his life and the life of Lance Corporal John Bradley, whose widow I spoke to recently. No one was ever held accountable for those victims. The IRA did that and got away. Members will understand what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said—if there is even a smidgen of possibility of holding them accountable, I want that for my constituents and for the victims I am speaking about.
I am the MP for the son of young John Birch, who came to see me and told me about the grandchildren who his dad would meet only in the next world. He asked me whether he could ever expect to learn who carried out the atrocity that robbed him of his childhood  and his role model on that fateful day, 9 April some 32 years ago. This Bill does not give those four victims or their families and children justice, and it does not deliver for them, and I feel incredibly annoyed.
Stuart Montgomery—I knew his dad, Billy, very well; we were friends for many years—was two weeks out of the police training college and was killed by a bomb at Pomeroy along with another police constable. Nobody was ever held accountable. Justice? Not in this Bill. Not for Stuart Montgomery, and not for the others.
I mentioned Lexie Cummings earlier, who was shot by an IRA man when he was having lunch in his wee Mini car in Strabane. He was a member of the UDR. They got the fella, by the way, but the boys made a slight mistake in the summons that meant that when he came to court in Omagh it had to be rewritten. In that time, he got out of the court and on a bike and cleared off across the border. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry knows the story only too well. That guy is now a prominent politician with a Republican party in Donegal, so Members will understand why I feel sore and aggrieved.

Johnny Mercer: I have huge affection for the hon. Gentleman. I can see the emotion and the anguish written all over his face as he talks of his friends who have been victims in the conflict. He wants that 1% or 2% chance of justice, but I ask him with all humility, at what cost? I know that he also feels that aspects of the process are deeply unfair, so at what cost do we keep going down that rabbit hole to get the answers that I know he authentically, genuinely wants to find, but that some Conservative Members feel cannot be found?

Jim Shannon: There is no price on justice. I am trying, perhaps haphazardly and not with the focus that I should, to put forward the case on behalf of the victims and to explain why the Bill does not deliver that. The seven people I have mentioned—the four UDR men, my cousin Kenneth, Daniel McCormick and Stuart Montgomery—served this country and wore the uniform that the hon. Gentleman wore. They do not have justice, and I feel annoyed.
I will mention some other examples. Abercorn was an IRA atrocity against innocents who were brutalised, murdered or maimed forever. In the Darkley Hall massacre, people who were worshipping God were murdered. Lastly, I think of La Mon because it is in my constituency. Other hon. Members have spoken well and encapsulated what I am trying to say in my raw broken form. People were burned alive in La Mon. They were members of the collie kennel club—they were not soldiers—but they were murdered, brutalised, destroyed. Their lives were changed forever. I remember that day well. Where is the justice for those victims in this legislation? I do not see it and it grieves me to think about it. The IRA commander who was in charge and responsible for the bomb at La Mon was a prominent member of Sinn Féin. He happens to be semi-retired, but he is still there.
I speak as someone who has watched investigation after investigation seem to focus on one narrative or one viewpoint—focused on 10% of the atrocities, and leaving the 90% wondering why their pain and sorrow meant less. I tell you what: the pain for my constituents is no  less than anybody else’s pain, nor is mine either. Who has heard the cry of the ex-RUC, the ex-UDR or the ex-prison officer who has been retraumatised by investigations designed specifically to pursue them by republicans to justify the atrocities that were carried out? I speak as someone who understands very well the frustration of the ex-soldiers being called to discuss an event of 50 years ago, when they cannot remember their shopping list for last week. I understand that—I understand it very well.
I speak as someone in this Chamber who has lived through the troubles, and who has intimate knowledge of the pain and despair caused to so many in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or political affiliation. My cousin Kenneth served alongside his Roman Catholic friend—they were best friends; one was in the UDR and one had left—and the IRA killed more Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland than anybody else. So we understand the victims, given the way we feel, the pain and soreness we have, and how we are with the things in front of us. I believe this gives me the right to speak in the Chamber with some authority when I say that this Bill does not achieve its aims.
This Bill does not deliver justice, and it does not answer the anguish or grief of the families I speak for or whom I want to speak about. It does not draw a line under current cases. It does not offer justice to my cousin Shelley Gilfillan, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) knows extremely well. She is involved with a victims group up in West Tyrone. She has mourned her brother for 50 and a half years, as have so many others because their cases do not have a live investigation or a firm suspect who can be asked to give information in lieu of immunity. Those murderers are well covered with their on-the-run letters. The gunman who killed Lexie Cummings had an on-the-run letter, and he got across the border and had a new life. Lexie never had a life after he was murdered in Strabane all those years ago. So the House can understand why I just feel a wee bit angry and a wee bit annoyed on behalf of my constituents, and it is because of how they feel that this legislation, for them, does not deliver what it should.

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sick in the stomach that murderers are apparently going to get away with it as a result of this Bill. It really is the fly in the ointment of this Bill. It is an imperfect Bill—I fundamentally feel it is wrong that murderers get away with it—but I honestly now feel that we have little choice, much as it makes me puke.

Jim Shannon: I think we all like the hon. Gentleman—I probably love him; it is not a secret. I think he is a great gentleman, and I understand and respect his honesty. I have to say that we have to disagree on this. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, understand my point of view.
I want to conclude, and I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have gone on a wee bit. I apologise for going over the time. I thank Ministers for seeking to give a platform for us to move forward, which I think they have, but they have not done it right. I know that in life things are not perfect all the time and we do not always get things the way we want them, but I think in this Bill we get imperfection, and imperfection rules. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my family, who still grieve, I urge greater engagement  with individual victims, and I urge that better legislation—not this legislation before us, but better legislation—be put forward that puts the victim at its heart and addresses the aim to prevent the current attempts to rewrite history by painting the guilty as warriors for justice against an oppressive state.
That is my opinion of the Bill, and I believe it is the opinion of many on this side of the Chamber. There are many on this side of the Chamber—I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) in his place—who have served in uniform, and we should not decry people, and there are such people here, who do the same.
In my opinion, this Bill achieves neither of those goals, and with that in mind, I will always speak up, as I always have, for the victims. Raymond McCord is no longer here, but I will always speak up for Raymond McCord as well. I will speak up for all those people who have lost loved ones and who grieve—grievously—for those who have passed away, even though it may be 50 years ago, 32 years ago, 20 years ago or longer, because that is what this is about. This legislation does not satisfy my constituents and it does not satisfy my family, and we want justice. I want that wee light of justice. I know that when I burn the rubbish at home, there is a wee light when I light the match and it does not seem to be doing very much, but all of a sudden that wee light can burn the fire. I think I want to see that wee light becoming a fire, but I do not see this legislation being the way to do it.

Claire Hanna: The legacy of the conflict is like a fog all around us. It affects politics in the everyday, and throughout this afternoon we have had a few glimpses of stories. Hon. Members will know that every time we meet a group or read a book, we hear a heartbreaking story that we have not heard before. Each one was a senseless loss that changed the futures and the lives of the families involved. Each of them is deserving of justice.
It is understandable that people say that we need to move on. Nobody wants to move on more than victims and survivors, but the Bill and the approach to legacy over recent years will not let them do so. It is blandly declared to be about reconciliation, but it will be a barrier to truth and reconciliation. It pretends to be about truth and reconciliation, but it will be difficult for people to shake the belief that—as with other major challenges facing us in Northern Ireland—it owes a lot more to placating parts of the Conservative party than it does to a good-faith attempt to get information for victims and survivors, and to aid societal healing.
In the face of opposition from every victims group, academics, legal experts and international commentators, and without the express consent of any political party in Northern Ireland, it is an act of institutional hostility for the Government to present the legislation as a fait accompli without the normal engagement. It is unwanted and unworkable. Ensuring the success of any legacy initiative requires independence—it is crucial to credibility —but unfortunately the Government are not independent on legacy. State actors and agencies were party to the conflict, and many of their personnel were perpetrators. While many served faithfully and to the best of their ability, some colluded with paramilitaries.
In direct conflict with the Stormont House agreement, the Bill places expansive and extravagant powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and a Government who are not trusted by a large number of the peoples in Northern Ireland. The Bill explicitly overrides devolution: senior personnel will be appointed to the new body by the NIO and the Secretary of State; rules on immunity will be made by the Secretary of State; national security and other vetoes, which for many years have been used as thwarting mechanisms, will be in the hands and at the whim of the Secretary of State; and those responsible for oral history will be in the hands of the Secretary of State, as will the budget. The purpose is to embed the control of the Secretary of State over the narrative and the outcomes.
The Command Paper in 2020 was an explicit amnesty, and this is the same thing, but in a less explicit way. It is clear to everybody what it is. The approach is structured to make it routine and fool-proof for perpetrators to get amnesty, which must be granted where a person has provided an account that is true to the best of their knowledge. That is a subjective test, and there is no test proposed of the actual truth of a perpetrator’s account. The perpetrator knows that the amnesty is available and must be granted if they assert that what they say is true. There need never be any word about those who called the shots.
The claim that prosecutions may follow for those who do not take part rings hollow when no new investigative body or pathway for prosecution will be created. The ability of the DPP to pursue prosecutions is theoretical, because if the Bill is passed the DPP will not be able to pursue prosecutions. Members have glibly referenced accusations not being proven in court, but it will not be possible to prove them in court if the Bill becomes law. Members also mentioned South Africa, but this is so far removed from what happened in South Africa, where victims provided impact statements and could be present, along with their lawyers who could cross-examine applicants. It is not even clear in the Bill that victims’ families will be notified if an amnesty is granted.
However much Members do not want certain offences to be in the Bill, it is clear that sexual violence will be covered by the amnesty. We know that people conducted and covered up systematic sexual abuse in paramilitary organisations, and they too will be eligible for immunity under the Bill. It is clear to everybody who the Bill is for. It is not for the people who have carried the weight of the conflict for decades: it is for the people who have the most to hide.
In the autumn just passed, I was part of a delegation of TDs, Senators and MPs who, under the Oireachtas’s Good Friday Committee, met a variety of different victims and survivors one afternoon. We discussed a range of issues, and one thing that came out organically in a number of conversations was a pattern in how the trauma of bereaved people is compounded through the denigration of the victims by those who killed them. The daughters and sons of people murdered by the British Army in Ballymurphy in 1971 told us about the marginalisation and shame that they faced for many years as allegedly the daughters and sons of IRA men and women. Paul Gallagher, who was paralysed aged 21 when the Ulster Freedom Fighters took over his home to murder his neighbour, suffered the further indignity of the man believed to be responsible for that shooting  saying that he shot him because he was a provo. He said that those words hurt more than the six bullets that entered his body in 1994.
Columba McVeigh was a teenage boy who was disappeared by the IRA, and his family still have not been allowed the basic dignity of a body to bury. He was made a non-person by allegations that he was a collaborator—allegations by an organisation that we now know was riddled with informants and which thought that that was an acceptable thing to do to a teenage boy. The Bill waves through immunity for each of those killers, and people really need to give their heads a wobble if they think that those perpetrators will just go quietly and not use their new get-out-of-jail-free passes to firm up their self-serving versions of the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) explained clearly, we have an example from the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which was established in 1999 to give some comfort to families left without a body to bury. Despite immunity and the process being risk-free, only half of such cases have been solved.
Alongside the amnesty, the Bill pulls down the shutters on the alternative pathways to justice and the existing patchwork of mechanisms for dealing with the past. As I said, the architecture has not been put in place to do it properly, and it has been weakened by a refusal to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and by delays in provision, but it seems that even those piecemeal provisions have brought forward too much truth for some people.
The Secretary of State’s arbitrary diktat on claims last Tuesday forced dozens of families to try to race to issue proceedings and washed away years of good law and practice. That casual statement, not even made to the House—it was a written statement—drove yet another coach and horses through the process, and families who had been given promises by the legal system are now thwarted because they are placed in a queue over which they have no control. Inquiries and inquests are far from an ideal method of dealing with these issues, but they have been delivering some outcomes for families and wider society. Government Members have used Operation Kenova and Jon Boutcher as some sort of an amulet in defence of the Bill, but those inquiries and inquests have advanced huge amounts of information to families about the IRA cover-up machine.
Members have mentioned inquests. In my constituency, we had the Sean Graham bookmakers killing, when loyalist paramilitaries killed five Catholic civilians. It later emerged that one of the weapons used was part of a shipment organised by a military intelligence agent, and another weapon handed into a barracks elsewhere in the constituency was ultimately handed back to those paramilitaries. That information had not been disclosed before. There is the issue of a cycle of reinvestigations, but this had not been investigated properly in the first place—many victims never spoke to a police officer—so that is why issues come back up.
Oral history and the exploration of themes and patterns will also be mangled if the Bill becomes law. We are clear that there is not a pathway to justice for absolutely every family, but oral history has been a way of giving voice to victims and survivors, capturing some of the  complexities of the conflict and understanding its deep and tangled roots. However, the Bill denigrates that approach and uses it as window dressing for what is actually impunity. Will those who have waited for decades and had the shutters pulled down now be sent to the library to read about people who have been hand-picked by the Secretary of State to tell their stories?
Members have cynically used the failure of successive Governments over decades to address this issue as an excuse to now “get Northern Ireland done”, but it is a consistent and recorded frustration of the SDLP that the needs of those who suffered the most have not been addressed, while perpetrators and politicians have gone on to a very bright future. In every single negotiation, absolutely every time—there have been five or six over the last 20 years—the offering and the outcomes for victims and survivors have been watered down. Everybody knows the Stormont House agreement was not perfect, but it was an international bilateral arrangement and it had the support of most of the parties—I think all the parties—in this House. That is no mean feat, but it has not been delivered because it has not been actioned and has not been allowed to be delivered.
Instead, the Bill and this interference in the justice system undermine the rule of law and block all pathways to truth and reconciliation. Deliberate fiction is being created today that this is about reconciliation. It is clear that that is hollow. The message is going out today not that anybody who has used violence for their political ends will ever have to be held to account, but that after a number of decades, if they did that in a uniform or in a paramilitary organisation the record will be wiped clean in a few years. That is an awful message to send to families and an awful message to send into the future in our turbulent part of the world.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referenced “Derry Girls”, which is not a sentence I ever thought I would say. That very moving episode did show how living and breathing the values of the Good Friday agreement are for all of us. As Erin and Michelle said, none of this stuff is easy, but just because it is not easy is not a reason. We cannot keep closing the door to truth. Every conflict around the world will show that the truth will out. People need to understand that it is not going to go away. The Bill will not let victims and survivors to move on. I urge the House to change it.

Tonia Antoniazzi: It is an honour to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I want to make clear that we are not opposing the Bill for opposition’s sake. This is a flawed and damaging piece of legislation that does not serve victims and survivors. It does not heal the wounds of communities. It does not allow Northern Ireland to move on.
We know and understand how challenging this is for so many. To hear the emotion in the voice of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) really hits home. It is important that his voice as a victim and the voices of all victims are heard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, the Bill does not deliver justice for victims or veterans—many veterans are also victims. The Bill as it is, as we have heard throughout the debate, demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of the situation faced by families and communities  affected by the troubles, and an off-handedness towards groups in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has not even been consulted on the proposals.
Victims and survivors often do not speak with one voice on these issues, but in this situation the Government have miscalculated. All the victims and survivor groups we have heard from are singing from the same songsheet: the Government have misjudged the mood. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said, he cannot find anyone, apart from those on the Conservative Benches, who wants the Bill to pass. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) spoke about those elected in Northern Ireland. They do not represent one single view on legacy. So when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) attacked the Labour party for not standing up for veterans, it was hurtful and, frankly, deplorable.

Stuart Anderson: The point I made is that, throughout the whole debate in the many hours we have been here, only one Labour Member spoke from the Back Benches. I think that is offensive. It will resonate throughout the veteran community that Labour has not put its views across in this debate and has not argued the point for veterans

Tonia Antoniazzi: The hon. Member needs to reflect on the fact that this is not about us today; it is about the people in Northern Ireland, and this is the start of a legislative process where we will all be represented. [Interruption.] It is not appropriate, and very hurtful, for hon. Members to continue to make sedentary remarks and chunter on. I would rather be able to make progress.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who spoke from the Government Benches, displayed the integrity and understanding of the people of Northern Ireland, which is precisely why the Government need to reframe the Bill. The Government say that they have learned lessons from South Africa, but there are significant differences between the two processes that will, in our opinion, not solve problems, but cause them in future.
First, on the independence of the entire process, the Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including to appoint people to the commission and over the process of the commission. Let us consider the following paragraph from clause 20, which is titled “Determining a request for immunity”. Subsection (8) states:
“The immunity requests panel must take account of any guidance given by the Secretary of State—
(a) when deciding in accordance with section 18(7) whether P should be granted—
(i) specific immunity from prosecution,
(ii) general immunity from prosecution, or
(iii) specific and general immunity from prosecution;”
The word “must” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. It is saying that the Secretary of State can make a judgment on whether a person can be granted immunity in specific cases or even in general. That comes on top of the guidance that the Secretary of State can give about whether conduct is “possible criminal conduct”. Those are not judgments that any Secretary of State should be making. The Government are leaving themselves wide open to legal challenges.
The Government will probably also be subject to legal challenges on the second difference between this model and the South African model—namely, the lack of  conditionality on the amnesty. Whereas in South Africa the process was public and transparent, the system that the Government are trying to bring in is, as one commentator put it, “impunity repackaged”. Conditions on an amnesty are so low that they may as well not even exist.
The last difference between the South African system and what the Government are proposing is the running of the inquest system. Clause 33, which is called “No criminal investigations except through ICRIR reviews”, states:
“On and after the day on which this section comes into force, no criminal investigation of any Troubles-related offence may be continued or begun.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out, any future investigations will not be allowed to take place. That is a significant difference and, frankly, it is not a solution that builds trust or delivers for victims or survivors.
We have also heard from the Government and Government Members about the process being the punishment, but they failed to mention that the Bill removes any reference to investigation of crimes and that that has now been replaced with the word “review”. For victims and survivors, that is not good enough. We cannot keep retraumatising victims and survivors of the troubles.
In Belfast less than two weeks ago, I heard at first hand from numerous organisations, when discussing legacy, how frustrated they were that they had better working relationships with the former Secretary of State and architect of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset, than they do with the incumbent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is not good enough. The manner in which the Government have behaved at every stage of the process in bringing the Bill before the House has been the antithesis of the values that underpin our system of governance.
The Bill will give the Secretary of State enormous powers, but there has been no prelegislative work and no scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for North Dorset has eloquently made the point that the Bill addresses such a contentious and emotive subject that it deserves more time for debate and consideration. The Opposition would support an extension of time to discuss the Bill.
We would also welcome a full consultation with the people of Northern Ireland. A consultation on the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill received 17,000 responses, with a clear message that there should be no amnesty for troubles-related abuses. Why are those voices now being ignored? Despite the clear support of the people of Northern Ireland for the Stormont House agreement, the UK Government released a written ministerial statement in March 2020 that signified a unilateral move away from it. That ran contrary to the Government’s commitments in the agreement and the expressed will of the Northern Irish people.
The Secretary of State says that he has consulted. Will he tell the House exactly whom he has consulted and what they have told him? There is such a lack of  support for the Bill from organisations such as Amnesty International, which he refuses to meet, and from the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, so we need to know. Demands for meetings with, in some cases, less than 24 hours’ notice is not the way to show organisations respect.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State will know from seeing the visitors in the Gallery that victims of the troubles have made the journey to London today because they are so upset and angry that their voices have not been heard. Is it not one of the Secretary of State’s principal roles to listen to victims and their families, sit down and take note, consult fully, undertake due diligence and, above all, pay them the respect that they deserve?
No matter how the Bill is dressed up, it equates to a blanket amnesty. It undermines fundamental human rights enshrined in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and undermines the institutions established to uphold that monumental and historic agreement, which underpins peace in Northern Ireland. The Bill is solely a product of the UK Government. It does not arise from an agreement with the political parties of Northern Ireland or with the Government of Ireland; it does not have the democratic legitimacy that previous legislative change has had. Even though it purports to be about reconciliation in Northern Ireland, it does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Labour party is an honest broker. Having listened to the victims’ groups, the organisations and the political parties that want justice and truth, we cannot support the Bill today. It delivers for no one and does not address the issues in Northern Ireland that need to be resolved.

Conor Burns: It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. It has been a varied, informed and intensely emotional debate, which is only to be expected, given the subject of the Bill. Words matter—they matter more in Northern Ireland than in perhaps any other part of our United Kingdom. Across the House, we all have an obligation to use our words in a measured way when we deal with these very sensitive issues.
I pay tribute to the victims who have been with us in the Chamber today and to the countless others who are not with us today, or not with us any more at all. I also pay tribute to those who served with such courage and bravery in Her Majesty’s armed forces throughout the years of the troubles, during the sectarian violence that came from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. Above all, let me pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland—to all the people of Northern Ireland, who always demonstrate such stoicism, generosity, hospitality and warmth, even in the most trying circumstances.
There is no doubt that the proposals that the Government are bringing forward today are controversial. I accept—as I accepted within my first week of returning to the Government when I was asked to go to the Northern Ireland Office—that there is widespread opposition to the proposals in the Bill. I noted at the time, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged,  that while there was considerable opposition to these proposals, there was not, conversely, a consensus on what the parties in Northern Ireland would like us to do instead. I say to my friends in all parties—and to members of the parties that are not represented physically in this place, either because those people do not take their seats or because they did not gain election—that it would be within the ability of the devolved Government, the Assembly in Northern Ireland, to take these matters forward if that consensus emerged on the ground and if they wished to do it.

Simon Hoare: I am encouraged by the consensual tone that my right hon. Friend is striking, and by his search for ways in which to widen the debate. In that spirit—given that he has heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and from the Democratic Unionist party of their strong desire for an extension of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House to allow that wider debate to be had and a wider range of amendments to be tabled—may I advise him to undertake to talk to the business managers about whether we can secure some extra time?

Conor Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, and I shall be saying something about his speech in a moment. We have heard concern expressed on both sides of the House about the amount of time that will be available in Committee. Both the Secretary of State and I are very open to the idea of expanding that, and conversations have already begun with business managers. Subject to their agreement, we would look to provide a little more time—

Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister give way?

Conor Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me while I give this commitment?
We would look to try and find more parliamentary time for consideration in Committee, in a spirit of being open to input from Members on both sides of the House. Now I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the Minister.
Given that the period between First Reading and Second Reading was so short, and given that consultation was virtually non-existent, would Ministers be prepared to refer the Bill to the Select Committee, or some other forum, for prelegislative scrutiny? I think that that would move us on a little bit.

Conor Burns: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the timetabling of today’s Second Reading debate was agreed through the usual channels. I must say to him candidly that I do not agree with his points about a lack of engagement. There has been considerable engagement, much of which has been undertaken directly by the Secretary of State and me, often with groups who did not welcome that engagement being publicised. Much of it, of necessity, took place in private, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in some of the meetings that I attended, the emotion was heard, and heard very clearly, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me.
We are tackling this, and I think that my right hon. Friend deserves a measure of credit, because it is an intensely difficult and controversial area for any Government to get involved in. That is why successive Governments  have left it alone. The fact that my right hon. Friend worked so diligently on these proposals—and, indeed, the flak that has been taken when we have missed deadlines in order to take the time to try to refine and improve the Bill that we were going to bring to the House today—show, I think, that we were listening. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister: the Government he leads will deliver shortly on the language and cultural commitments that they have undertaken.

Stephen Farry: I noted the Minister’s claim that the Government had engaged with various victims groups on a private basis. Indeed, there have been media reports that some, allegedly, said something privately that was different from what they have said in public. We all know the main victims groups in Northern Ireland, as do the Government. All of them have made their opposition to these proposals clear in public. Furthermore, they have made it very clear that what they say in public is exactly the same as what they say in private. How does the Minister explain this clear disjoint?

Conor Burns: I would describe the “clear disjoint” as not being a clear disjoint, because that was a journalist’s quote which does not reflect what was actually said. Let me also correct a little nuance. I did not say that we were engaging privately; I said that we were engaging in private. We were meeting people who had been victims of terrorism. I myself met victims from republican families in West Belfast—I do not think many Ministers have done this over the years—hosted by the Sinn Féin Member, the hon. Member for Belfast West (Paul Maskey), so it is not true to say that the Secretary of State and I and the member of our ministerial team in the other place—and, indeed, our officials, who have worked so hard on developing these proposals and to whom I pay tribute—have not been listening.
I just want to correct a few points of fact as we begin the closure of this debate. I say gently to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), on his point about sexual offences that we are very clear that any offences from 1 January 1966 to 10 April 1998 that are not troubles-related can still be investigated by the PSNI and police forces in Great Britain. Troubles-related offences that are not linked to a death or serious injury will not be investigated by this body and will not be subject to the immunity provisions. Only serious and connected troubles-related offences that took place between those dates and that are related to a death or serious injury will be eligible for immunity.

Peter Kyle: This is a very serious issue and it would be great to clarify this. The model bill team on Queen’s University Belfast’s committee on the administration of justice, who are experts in this area, have said:
“Unusually for such an immunity scheme, there is no specific prohibition on certain kinds of crime, such as crimes of sexual violence. It would therefore appear that applicants who had been involved in rape and other crimes of sexual violence related to the Troubles, or indeed the covering up of such crimes within paramilitary or state organisations, would be entitled to apply for immunity under this bill.”
So this is not just about serious violence. If people who had committed serious violence and rape applied for immunity, would it apply in these circumstances? Let’s just clear this up.

Conor Burns: The direct answer to that is no. The proper place for us to test some of these questions will be in Committee, rather than on Second Reading, but I am absolutely clear, as is the Secretary of State, that that is not the intention of the Bill and it will not be a consequence of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made a powerful speech. I can tell him that the commissioner for investigations and designated officers will have the full sweep of police powers in pursuing their investigations and reviews. These are much greater than we have perhaps so far successfully explained. On the independence of the body, which my right hon. Friend also mentioned, the Secretary of State was clear in his opening speech that Her Majesty’s Government will have no role in the operational work of the body. I would welcome working with my right hon. Friend to find ways to make that clearer as we proceed to the Committee stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised a point about consideration of other information when considering whether to grant immunity. The judge-led immunity panel is under a duty to take into account other information in possession, and will therefore have to carefully assess conflicting evidence before deciding whether to apply immunity and whether the person applying for that immunity was in fact telling the truth.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) referred to engagement. What is clear is that there is no widespread consensus on this. Even within families there are differences in how people want this to be treated. That is why the role of the families in engaging with this body will be incredibly important to the body exercising its discretion after its formation. The hon. Member was right to say that honest and effective information recovery would be better with the full co-operation of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Irish Republic. I have to say without being misunderstood that I do not think we will be requiring information from the Government of the Irish Republic for veterans.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chairman of the Select Committee, talked about the appointment of commissioners. Other than the chief commissioner, the Government have been deliberately opaque in setting out who else should serve on that, and we are very open to ideas and would welcome them.

Simon Hoare: Will my right hon. Friend assure me and the House that there is nothing in the Bill that precludes somebody with international status, but who is not a UK citizen, from serving as a commissioner? That would add extra independence, rigour and experience, which would add value to the whole process.

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is absolutely right. There is nothing in the Bill that precludes an international person from serving on the body. In fact, it could well be warmly welcomed and add rigour to the body’s credibility, impartiality and independence.
Over the decades, a number of politicians in this House have taken courageous steps to build the peace and stability we enjoy in Northern Ireland today. It was started by Margaret Thatcher with the Anglo-Irish agreement,  and John Major built it up. Tony Blair signed the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and David Cameron gave an incredible speech on the publication of the Saville report, which I was privileged to hear in the Chamber. That peace has been hard-fought and hard-won.
Since I rejoined Government in this role, I have visited multiple schools in Northern Ireland in Castlederg, Hillsborough, Armagh, Belfast, Bangor, Craigavon, Saintfield and Newtownards. People questioned why, when education is devolved, I was bothering with schools as a UK Government Minister. I pointed out that kids are not devolved, parents are not devolved and teachers are not devolved. The future of Northern Ireland is in those schools.
Two schools, in particular, stand out in my memory: St Brigid’s College in Derry, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle, and Antrim Grammar School. I visited Antrim Grammar having met a young man at a charity play for the centenary “Our Story in the Making: NI Beyond 100,” which the Northern Ireland Office had the privilege to fund partially. This young man, Chris Campbell, was going into his A-levels, and he was playing Mr Northern Ireland almost 25 years on from the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—this young man was not even born when Northern Ireland knew the troubles. One line from the play stuck in my mind: “Being divided keeps us united.” When I returned to my primary school in north Belfast, Park Lodge, I was asked—

Iain Duncan Smith: I hesitate to distract the Minister from his theatrical memories—he is doing very well—but I would like to take him back to the Bill for a split second. I mean no offence, of course.
If people do not choose to be in the reconciliation process, whatever one feels about tightening up how it works, is it feasible to adjust it so that, if they choose the courts or if the courts choose them, they go back to a full-life tariff for committing murder most foul, whoever they are?

Conor Burns: It is always a delight to be silenced by the quiet man. We will have to come back to those matters in Committee, but I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Labour Front Bench are hearing, not least in our determination potentially to find more time to consider these matters in Committee, our openness to good ideas from both sides of the House that could improve the Bill.

Julian Smith: Will the Minister commit to having another look at the five-year pipeline of inquests so that the Government can assure anybody who has been promised an inquest that those inquests will actually go ahead?

Conor Burns: That is certainly something that we will happily take a look at. There is no proposal even in the Bill to bring down the curtain immediately on inquests that are under way. For the sake of finding consensus, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be more than happy to look at reasonable suggestions.

Johnny Mercer: I of course welcome the Minister saying from the Dispatch Box that he will look at x, y and z. Does he understand and does the Northern  Ireland Office understand that we have to go further and over-compensate for a past that has failed victims? Families do not have confidence and we must commit to a level of transparency and openness. I know that my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and Secretary of State want to do that, but we need to make that commitment from the Dispatch Box, because we have to bring these families with us.

Conor Burns: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to build on the bits of the current framework that are working, but I accept as I know my hon. Friend will concede, that much of it is not working or delivering for victims.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: A moment ago the Minister mentioned the word “consensus”. If in the Committee stage there is cross-party support from Northern Ireland on key changes to the Bill, will the Government commit to taking heed of the voices of those of us who represent the people of Northern Ireland?

Conor Burns: Given that we are not at this moment negotiating another confidence and supply arrangement, I do not intend to write the right hon. Gentleman a blank cheque from this Dispatch Box, but I will say in the spirit of co-operation and consensus that, if agreement can be reached on ways in which the proposals can be improved, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I and the Government more widely will absolutely look at them.

Mike Penning: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Conor Burns: No, I am going to conclude.
The Northern Ireland that I was born into 50 years ago this year was a place with an atmosphere of violence and conflict that was powerful and overwhelming. Such was that society that when I moved to England to a little village in Hertfordshire called Wheathampstead I told my mother as an eight-year-old boy that I did not feel safe. When she asked me why, I said that the police did not have guns and the Army were not on the streets. That was the normalised Northern Ireland of those days. Thank God those days are behind us.
On the formation of the Northern Ireland Office, Willie Whitelaw was appointed Secretary of State. He went on his first evening in post to speak to a Conservative gathering in Harrow. It is recorded in his memoirs that he said to them:
“I am undertaking the most terrifying, difficult and awesome task. The solution…will only be found in the hearts and minds of men and women.”
Northern Ireland remains a society where facts are contested and divisions are entrenched. We cannot draw a line and we cannot move on. You cannot heal the hurt of human hearts, or the grief of bereaved parents and siblings, but we have a duty to try to find a way not to bequeath this entrenched division to future generations.
In a spirit of partnership, co-operation and compromise, let us head to the Bill Committee and use our collective judgment, knowledge and wisdom to improve the proposition that is before the House today. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 208.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
(3) The proceedings—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
TABLE

  

  Clause 1; new Clauses relating to Part 1;
  new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 42
  to 50; new Clauses relating to Part 4;
  new Schedules relating to Part 4
  Three hours after the commencement of
  proceedings on the first day.


  Clause 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 6;
  Schedule 2; Clauses 7 to 9; Schedule 3;
  Clauses 10 to 14; Schedule 4; Clauses 15 to 25;
  Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 26 and 27;
  Schedule 7; Clauses 28 to 32; new Clauses
  relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating
  to Part 2; Clauses 33 to 38; Schedules 8
  and 9; Clause 39; Schedule 10; Clauses 40 and 41;
  Schedule 11; new Clauses relating
  to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3;
  Clause 51; Schedule 12; Clauses 52 to 57;
  new Clauses relating to Part 5; new Schedules relating to Part 5; remaining
  proceedings on the Bill
  Five hours after the commencement of
  proceedings on the second day.

  

Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day of proceedings in Committee and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on that day.
Programming committee
(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill: Money

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or any other public authority, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 31 March in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Corporate Travel Management

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk regarding their concerns around the contract awarded by the UK Government to Corporate Travel Management to co-ordinate the hotel quarantine programme, and their belief that the UK Government failed in their duty to ensure that CTM had an adequate system in place to deal with customer payments and complaints.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to commit to reallocate funding to recompense anyone who has lost out financially as a result of CTM’s handling of the quarantine hotel booking service when South Africa was moved onto the UK travel red list.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the contract awarded by the UK Government to Corporate Travel Management (CTM) to coordinate the hotel quarantine programme avoided due process or competition; further that the UK Government failed in their duty to ensure that CTM had an adequate system in place to deal with customer payments and complaints around the operation of the quarantine hotel booking services; and notes that this has resulted in many travellers being unable to coordinate travel back to the UK when South Africa was moved onto the UK travel red list.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to commit to reallocate funding to recompense anyone who has lost out financially as a result of CTM’s handling of the quarantine hotel booking service when South Africa was moved onto the UK travel red list.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002734]

Asylum Reception Centre: Linton-on-Ouse

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Kevin Hollinrake: I very much appreciate this opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the asylum seeker reception centre at Linton-on-Ouse. I must say that although the Home Office has been willing to engage on this issue, the approach it has taken has been pretty much an abuse of power. It has been indifferent all the way along. The approach has been very insensitive and quite uninformed in terms of the issues that we see on the ground.
I would summarise the proposals as a convenience, in that the availability of a site has taken precedence over its suitability. The site is simply not fit for the purpose outlined for it. A key indicator of that is that until now I have not been able to find—I am sorry to say this; I have hunted through Home Office and Cabinet Office Ministers, Secretaries of State and officials—anybody willing to take ownership of the decision and say that it is the right thing to do. No Member of Parliament or Minister has come up to me to say that they believe that this is the right place to put the facility.
Of course such a facility is always going to be controversial; I quite understand that. As I will touch on in a second, this is not about nimbyism. To put right at the heart of a village of 600 people a facility that will ultimately have a capacity of about 1,500 young single men between 18 and 40, coming from different cultures and different parts of the world—Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea—is absolutely disgraceful. I have lived all my life about six or seven miles away from the village, and I know many people in it. In North Yorkshire, we are lucky to have a great deal of freedom—that is what we are used to. But the people of Linton-on-Ouse will have those liberties taken from them as a result of this policy.

Robert Goodwill: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a developer were to try to build a development of such a size on the edge of such a village, they would be laughed out of court?

Kevin Hollinrake: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I very much appreciate his support and that of many other colleagues; this debate is well attended for an Adjournment debate, which I very much appreciate.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the issue is not race or nimbyism, but scale—the whole facility is way out of scale for this development, as he says. I am talking about the simple liberties that we take for granted: walking to the village shop, sending a child to walk to the village school or playground, walking the dog alone in the morning or evening—all those liberties that have been pretty much taken for granted in Linton-on-Ouse will be taken from its residents. I do not think it is putting it too strongly to say that those residents are the sacrificial lambs to a national policy. That cannot be right and it cannot be something that the Minister will countenance.

Julian Sturdy: Is my hon. Friend not surprised that there was no consultation with local MPs, local authorities and local residents before the decision was actually taken?

Kevin Hollinrake: I am kind of surprised and kind of not. I can understand the political priority around the policy, which sits alongside the Rwanda policy. It was hastily rushed out and has not been properly considered.
But my hon. Friend is so right. I should point to the facility at Rivenhall, in the Home Secretary’s constituency. That was eventually removed because, according to the Home Office, there had been
“a failure to recognise that Rivenhall was not in a major conurbation”.
It said that asylum seekers should be placed in urban areas that encompass a number of cities or towns so that they can access support more easily. Crucially, to come back to my hon. Friend’s point, there was
“a failure to ensure that appropriate engagement had taken place with council officials and other service providers”.
Those are the Home Office’s own words, but exactly the same has happened again with this facility. There has been no consultation.

Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend is a tremendous champion for the people of Thirsk and Malton—that is not in doubt—but this issue is also about what is in the interest of the asylum seekers. We are dealing with people who are highly vulnerable, and the point he is making is very strong. It is about their ability to access support networks and to be in an appropriate environment, as opposed to being in an isolated, albeit incredibly beautiful part of the world. He is absolutely right to bring this question to the Floor of the House, and it is absolutely right that Ministers are held to account for this decision.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not just about the site not being right for the residents of Linton-on-Ouse; it is not right for the asylum seekers, either. I am yet to find any agency that supports this facility in this location, whether police or local authorities, or anyone in the community itself. Crucially, the refugee agencies that have attended all the public meetings I have attended have been clear that this is the wrong facility in the wrong place. That cannot be right for the asylum seekers themselves. Inevitably, in a small local village with no amenities other than a village shop, they will be bored, whatever is put on the site in terms of some amenities, which, to be fair, the Home Office is doing.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate, which impacts on my city of York, as I have discussed with York City of Sanctuary. We are concerned about people’s access to vital infrastructure and services such as the NHS, which is based in the middle of my constituency. It is completely inaccessible outside of hours for people in Linton-on-Ouse without private transport.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Member raises a good point. The first tranche of 60 people—service users, as they are called by the Home Office—are due to move in  in seven days’ time. There was an indication by the Home Office today that that might be delayed. We do not know by how long yet, but nevertheless, none of the plan for mental health support, GP support or dental support has yet been articulated. The police plan has not yet been articulated. It is simply wrong. We are going far too quickly with this. We need to slow down, pause, look again, consult properly and make sure that we have mitigations in place.
I was on the call with the police and the Home Office today, and the police came out with the phrase that they use, that they want to keep people safe and for people to feel safe. Neither of those things do people in Linton-on-Ouse feel. People do not feel safe. I think those fears are rational; they are not irrational fears. In any cohort of 1,500 young single men, there will be some who do not play by the rules. The vast majority will, but that is of little comfort to people genuinely in fear of their lives and wellbeing. I have had children as young as nine writing to me and meeting me at these public meetings saying how panic stricken they are. I have had elderly residents saying that they have lost the sale of their home and they are in ill health, including one lady whose husband is in ill health. This issue is changing lives today.
Crucially, one thing that has not been considered at all—this was the subject of an exchange of correspondence with the Home Office only yesterday—is what happens to existing service personnel in accommodation on the site and in the village. According to the Home Office, they have been given an option to move elsewhere, but that should not need to be the case. What happens with someone in the armed forces, currently or previously, who has already bought a house in the village of Linton-on-Ouse? I speak with some experience in the property market, and there is little chance of selling any house in Linton-on-Ouse at the moment. We are basically saying to service personnel or former service personnel who live in the village—it is commonly known where they live, and it may be that some of these service users hold a grudge against service personnel who have fought in Iraq and elsewhere—that a grudge held against them might put their lives in peril. No consideration has been made of that. It cannot be right that the Home Office is not showing a reasonable duty of care.

Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend has spoken of some 60 or 70 service users due to arrive next week. That is already 10% of the entire population of the village. Can he clarify whether this will be a closed facility? Will there be any management of ingress and egress, or will the service users be widely open to move around the population at will?

Kevin Hollinrake: That is a good question; I should have touched on that earlier. It is a non-detained site, so the service users—asylum seekers—will be able to leave the site and return at will. There will be some management of that on the door to get the name of who is leaving and who is coming back, although there is always a concern that people will get out by other means as it is a very big site, but the point is that they are non-detained. There is an informal curfew at 10 pm, so there is no requirement for them to come back. Safeguarding calls will be made to them after 10 o’clock if they are not back, but there is no limitation on the number of times  that they can leave the site. In fact, they can go and stay overnight elsewhere. They are free to come and go, which is clearly a big concern for the village.
I am sure that this is not the Home Office’s intention, but it appears to me that the village is collateral damage of a wider policy. It cannot be right to put the whole burden of a single national policy, however important it is, on one small community wherever it is in the UK—whether it is in my constituency or not. This is not about my popularity locally or my majority. I know many people in the village and was at school with many of them. It is simply unfair, it is simply wrong and Ministers must think again.

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend is making a valuable speech about the implications for that community. Has he had any indication from the Home Office about extra funding that may be available for local services such as extra policing or health? It is a small community facing a very large potential increase in the population. What happens to that funding?

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that position is not yet clear. It has been made more apparent recently that there will be that kind of funding, but we have no plan in place. The police, fire and crime commissioner, Zoë Metcalfe, has been very helpful and engaged in the whole process, as have Hambleton District Council, Mark Robson, the leader of the council, and Mal Taylor, the local councillor. Apparently, there will be a double-manned police car in that village 24/7, which is good to hear, and there will also potentially be CCTV in the village, which does not currently exist. Those potential mitigations would help, but it is not clear that those plans will be in place on 31 May when service users move in. I have also not seen a clear plan anywhere.
On the funding of the centre, I understand that money will be made available from Home Office funds, but again that is not clear, which is why we are saying that the plans should be paused until we understand what is needed and how it will be deployed properly.
I have been called all kinds of things on Twitter since I objected to this facility, such as racist, which is complete nonsense. Thirsk and Malton has been welcoming of asylum seekers from all different parts of the world. We have some Syrian families in Malton and we have Ukrainian families all across the constituency, so it is complete nonsense. Nor is it a question of nimbyism. As I said, I would object to such a facility and support other hon. Members—I am delighted to see so much support in the Chamber—wherever it was going to be if that was the wrong location, as this is. We can tell it is the wrong location because Home Office guidance on dispersal is clear that there should be one asylum seeker per 200 head of population. This is on a completely different scale. The only comparable facility that we operate in the UK is at Napier in Folkestone, where there are now 320 service users against a population of 47,000. In this case, there will be 1,500 against a population of 600. Clearly, that is a trebling of the population.

Alison Thewliss: I very much support the debate that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group  on immigration detention, I have visited the Napier site and found that it was entirely inadequate for the needs of the asylum seekers based there, that it had put a burden on local health services, and that facilities had not really been put in place to deal with that number of people—and that was 300, not the 1,500 suggested for the site at Linton-on-Ouse. Does he share my concern that, without engaging with the local community, it would be difficult to get support for any size of facility on people’s doorstep?

Kevin Hollinrake: Yes, I think the hon. Member is absolutely right, and she does great work on the all-party group on immigration detention, which is heavily engaged with me on these matters. Whatever we do with these facilities, we have to plan them properly. That did not happen at Napier, hence the trouble. This is a better-planned site, there is no doubt about it—some of the issues of dormitory accommodation and other things have been solved, and the accommodation itself has been planned better—but it is much worse for accessing amenities and public services for the service users, which leads to all other kinds of problems.
As I say, we are where we find ourselves, but I do not think it is right that we can effectively use this village, which is clearly not the right the place for this facility. Everybody can see that. I am really interested to hear whether the Minister will defend this choice, because I have not heard a Minister or an official do that yet. There is lots of finger pointing going on.

Graham Stringer: Although I am from the other side of the Pennines, I find the hon. Gentleman’s case completely compelling. Is this site intended to be permanent or is it temporary? I would be grateful if he could explain that.

Kevin Hollinrake: I think it is more than temporary. We are not quite clear, and I appreciate the hon. Member’s support. Clearly, the Home Office is putting quite a big investment into this. It is putting a gym, a library and facilities for multi-faith worship activities on site. It is clearly a big investment, so I can only imagine that it is not a two-year but a decade-long thing, if not longer, depending on how the wider asylum and small boats issue carries on. I think people’s lives are going to be blighted for a decade at least—that would be my guesstimate—and that affects things in so many different ways in the village, not least the liberties that people should reasonably expect.
To me, the plans are half-baked. I cannot put it any more kindly than that. On the call today with Home Office officials, the words were, “This is going to be a journey.” I just do not think that is right. I just do not think we can treat a community of 600 people like that. Of course these matters are controversial wherever we put such facilities, but nevertheless it is clearly easier and more likely to work as part of a local community in a bigger community, for so many different reasons—not least the fear of crime, of course. In a bigger conurbation, when someone is walking down the street there are likely to be other people on that street, but in a village such as Linton-on-Ouse there often is not, so people are going to feel like prisoners in their own home much of the time there.
I said right at the start that this is an abuse of power, and I do not think that is putting it too strongly. The Home Office is using its emergency powers, with a Q notice, so it did not have to go through the planning process for this material change of use, which it undoubtedly is. The reason for those powers—why is it an emergency?—was, we were told, covid. Well, we thought that covid was actually largely behind us, especially at this time of year. I do not think it is right to say that covid can be one of the reasons why we are using emergency powers in this way. I know that Hambleton District Council is looking at enforcement action against the Home Office to find out the exact reasons behind the emergency powers, which should be used exceptionally rather than on a more frequent basis. So this really does not seem to have been properly considered or thought through, and it is ill-informed.
Where do we need to go now? There are other sites available. My belief is that this should stop completely. It is not just about putting mitigations in place; it is the wrong place, and there is no way to mitigate this facility in a way that will make residents feel safe and be safe, so we should stop completely. I have a list of other sites that could be considered. I am interested to see what the Minister says about the consideration of other sites, but the Linton-on-Ouse action group has put together a list of other sites, all from the MOD disposal list. I think that is where we should go next. We should suspend these plans, look at this and consult on other sites. We absolutely should delay right away, and there should be no talk of this happening in a week’s time. The police have asked for at least a month’s delay. If the police want a month’s delay, the Home Office surely cannot ignore the police and crime commissioner’s recommendation, which has the support of her senior officers, and carry on regardless without listening to the expert advice of those people.
The line of least resistance is that the Government simply change tack, have a change of heart, reverse their plans and look at this again, which I would welcome. If that is not going to happen, and I have no indication that it is, then as I have said, I will be working with Hambleton District Council on a legal challenge. I think it is serious enough that we should challenge the basis of the decision and the process by which it has been made in the courts if the Government do not change tack. I do not think it is right to do that unless we have a serious chance of reversing the plans completely and blocking them altogether. If all we were to achieve were simply to delay things or give the Home Office the opportunity it should have taken in the first place to consult properly, I would not want to waste taxpayers’ money. We are still waiting for legal advice, but if there is a realistic chance that we can block the proposals and make the Home Office think again, we should do that on behalf of those people who live in the village.
I am told all the time by Home Office officials that this is a political decision. It will take the Minister or the Home Secretary to intervene, either to own the decision and say, “This is my decision, this is the right thing to do”, or to own up and say, “It is not my decision, and this is the wrong place.” There is lots of finger-pointing going on, but it cannot be that the fortunes of that village hang on a decision that no one will take ownership of. That is very much where we are. I would like to understand who owns the decision, and the rationale behind it in the context of other sites. I want the Minister to tackle the issue that I believe is at the heart of all this  —tell me I am wrong—that it is not simply that the availability of the site has superseded the suitability of the site. I cannot see any other justification for the selection of Linton-on-Ouse as the place for this asylum reception centre.

Kevin Foster: It is clear from what we have heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is a strong champion for his constituents. It will come as no surprise to them or to the House to hear that he has made regular and firm objections to the opening of an asylum accommodation centre at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, in addition to those he has made clear tonight.
Our asylum system is broken. It is not delivering value for taxpayers; it is not delivering for those who are genuinely in need of protection in our country. We need to change and accommodation centres are part of that. Our nation has a long and proud history of supporting those in greatest need, as do many communities across Yorkshire. I take on board the points my hon. Friend made that this is not about his objecting to the idea that communities across Yorkshire should provide refuge; it is about his views on this particular proposal. In other contexts, such as Afghan resettlement and supporting those from Ukraine, he has been very clear that he wants to see his constituency play a full part in those efforts. It is essential that we reform our current system to crack down on those who abuse our hospitality so that we can focus on those genuinely in need of help. That is exactly what the Government are doing through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and our migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.
As the House is aware, the UK has a statutory obligation to provide suitable accommodation and support to those who claim asylum and would otherwise be destitute.
The unprecedented and unacceptable rise in dangerous small boat crossings continues to put huge pressure on the UK’s asylum system. That pressure is most keenly felt in the asylum accommodation estate, where demand significantly exceeds capacity. Alongside the enduring impact of the pandemic, that has resulted in a significant increase in the numbers of asylum seekers needing to be accommodated. Many have had to be placed in hotels at huge expense to UK taxpayers. Hotel accommodation is now costing the taxpayer nearly £5 million per day. This is not appropriate or right and cannot continue to be the default option if we need to find someone a bed for the night to meet our statutory duties.
Whatever one’s view in the debates around asylum policy, everyone will recognise a need to reduce the use of hotels and provide more suitable accommodation for those seeking asylum, which is why the Government are taking forward work to design and implement asylum accommodation centres, of which Linton-on-Ouse is the first. I would like to set out why the Government are progressing the use of the site, what accommodation centres are and why we are adopting this model, which is already successfully used in Greece and other European countries.
The Home Office has been working with Government agencies and public sector bodies to identify suitable locations for accommodation centres. It is safe to say that there are not large numbers of sites available for us  to pick from. Following substantive work with the Ministry of Defence, RAF Linton-on-Ouse was identified as a viable location to. develop an accommodation centre. That is because the site offers many established accommodation units and amenities that have been kept in reasonable condition, given its previous use, including canteens and recreational and sports facilities together with education, religious, medical and office facilities that will support its use.
The presence of those existing facilities means that the Government can move at pace to meet the increase in demand and use the centre as part of the move away from hotel usage. A site such as RAF Linton-on-Ouse allows the Home Office to provide services and activities for those accommodated there, minimising the impact on the community and local services more widely. As I touched on, the accommodation centre model is part of a wider transformation designed to make the system more efficient and effective.

David Simmonds: I very much commend and agree with the Minister, but I note that in correspondence I have received from the London Borough of Hillingdon, which serves much of my constituency, the costs to the local authority of providing services to refugees housed by the Home Office is currently about £1.8 million, of which just over £100,000 is met from Government funds. Does he agree that it would help to reassure local authorities such as those around Linton-on-Ouse—and, indeed, my local authority—if we had a clear guarantee that the costs to council tax payers would be met in full?

Kevin Foster: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we already have a consultation under way about a major reform to the dispersed accommodation system. As he will know, we are moving to a full dispersal system in which all local authorities will be involved—previously, not everyone was involved—and part of that is looking at the cost to local authorities. There is a slight difference with accommodation centres in that in such sites a number of facilities are provided that we would not provide at each individual location where dispersed accommodation is provided. We cannot realistically provide it in contingency hotels. As he will be aware, the London Borough of Hillingdon has quite a large number of people in contingency hotels and I think that, whatever our views on the proposal and some other aspects of asylum policy, we can all agree that we need to move away from that. It is not good for them, for the taxpayer or for the local communities.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Minister makes a good point that the number of sites that might fit the bill are few and far between and that the site’s accommodation may be suitable, but does he not agree that, in the interests of the asylum seekers, it would be better to have the centre where people could access other amenities, leisure facilities and public services? Surely he can see that the selection of a site that completely lacks all those things is pretty sub-optimal.

Kevin Foster: We can look at what will be provided on the site. For example, it is fully catered, so there will be three meals a day for those accommodated there. We will provide a number of basic services and facilities for recreation and entertainment and, on top of that—this is perhaps one thing we were to come on to—we will  provide the ability to progress cases while on site, such as doing the pre-interview questionnaire and conducting the substantive asylum interview so that people’s cases can be processed more efficiently. We believe that that will deliver a better outcome overall. We are working on healthcare and other areas as well. Again, it is about the balance between having numbers in one location where we can provide a number of services versus more dispersed accommodation where we do not supply specific services and people may be more reliant on those in the community.

Alison Thewliss: rose—

Kevin Foster: I will take one more intervention, but, given the time, I do want to respond to some of the other points made.

Alison Thewliss: I appreciate the Minister giving way. Will he explain exactly how people will get legal support on site in a village in the middle of nowhere? Would he not be better to go back to the alternatives-to-detention pilot projects, the recommendations of which the Government have accepted and which have been found to be a cheaper and better option for all involved?

Kevin Foster: Again, it is worth pointing out that people are not detained on the site. Transport will be provided to York, and they will also have access to legal aid and migrant help services. Again, a place where, for example, we can progress asylum interviews—a place with video conferencing technology and other things available—will lead to better outcomes for people than being in a hotel, which for many is the alternative.
I am conscious of the time and want to respond to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. We have said that we will start small, with only about 60 people accommodated at the site in the first instance. That will be followed by a phased approach, with numbers gradually increasing to ensure that services are appropriate and that the site operates as we expect. To reassure my hon. Friend, the final decision to place service users on the site will only be taken once the services are in place and we are clear it is safe and legal to do so. As touched on, all asylum seekers will receive a thorough induction, including site and local information. The site is fully catered and there will be a number of recreational facilities. I am sure colleagues will appreciate that it is not a holiday camp, but there are facilities that allow people to occupy and entertain themselves.
I have heard the very strong representations made about the impact on people living in the local area. I will provide some further detail on local services. Only single adult males with low health vulnerabilities and the lowest level of additional needs will be accommodated at the site. That is specifically to ensure that local health services are not unduly impacted by the creation of the new centre. Those being accommodated will already have undergone a robust screening process consisting of mandatory checks, which include the capture of biographic and, crucially, biometric data. That information is then cross-referenced against a number of systems to verify a person’s identity. Furthermore, Serco will have a comprehensive security model for the site, which will be scaled up as occupancy increases, ensuring a presence on the site. I am sure colleagues will appreciate why I  will not go into the full details of security arrangements on the Floor of the House, but there will be a presence. In addition, we have set up multi-agency forums, which include the police, to develop approaches for responding to any potential incidents.
My hon. Friend touched on engagement. He has certainly engaged regularly on this issue with me, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and senior Home Office officials. Earlier today, he was again making very clear his thoughts on particular things. At every meeting he has been very clear that his view is that it should not go ahead and that he wants to raise his concerns. We now have regular meetings with key partners, including from the local authority, police and fire, who can raise operational points relating to the site. Having met the leader of my hon. Friend’s local council, I know that it supports his objections, while engaging on the operational side. It is very clear that it will do so while not compromising on its overall view of the proposal.
We recognise the need for an open dialogue with the local community. We are putting in place a programme of communications to keep people in and around Linton-on-Ouse informed, alongside meetings for local people to attend. We recognise the strength of feeling in the local community on this issue. There is a strong determination within the Home Office to ensure that everything possible is done to answer people’s questions and lessen their concerns, while recognising the objections being made, including by my hon. Friend who represents them in this place.
My hon. Friend raised a couple of specific points. One was in relation to the families-in-service accommodation within the wire of RAF Linton-on-Ouse. As he touched on, they have been offered the chance to move from the site. They are on the site. My understanding is that they would have liked to have been aware that being on the base itself would not be permanent accommodation, given the fact that the RAF has ceased using it for flying operations. Clearly, the presence there was due to be run down, but provisions have been made to ensure that they are there.
We today received a letter from the Vale of York clinical commissioning group setting out its approach to primary care services for the asylum seeker population at Linton-on-Ouse. Again, to reassure my hon. Friend and the House, it is our intention that we would not look to house those with significant health needs at Linton-on-Ouse. If people developed those needs or vulnerabilities while on the site, they would be considered for being housed elsewhere, recognising that this type of facility should not put undue pressure on particular parts of local health services, including—my hon. Friend has been very clear on this point—mental health services. It should not just be seen as a matter of physical health.
I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend. He has been a very strong advocate for his constituents. This is not a decision the Government have taken lightly, but the need for action to reform our asylum system is abundantly clear and part of that includes accommodation centres. The Government will not shy away from taking the necessary steps to fix our broken asylum system and to ensure we have an accommodation system that is no longer reliant on hotels as the default option.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.